Vote up the post containing site X, if you want a migration path to site X. Vote down, if you won't.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
16
-
7$\begingroup$ I'd point out that in order for a migration path to be added, there has to be a history of successful migrations to that site, frequently enough to warrant migration by non-moderators. Just having popular support isn't going to be enough. $\endgroup$– David Z ModCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:37
-
$\begingroup$ @DavidZ It is sad, but I think it would be still useful to have a clear picture about this question. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:41
-
3$\begingroup$ Can you clarify which migration paths are currently overrun beyond the capacity for manual migration by moderators? Looking at the migration stats, I can't see anything clocking in at more than a migration every three weeks, which is easily manageable. What practical problem would additional migration pathways solve that are not currently solvable by a simple moderator flag? $\endgroup$– Emilio PisantyCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:50
-
4$\begingroup$ Related on Meta Stack Exchange: When should we consider adding a default migration path?. $\endgroup$– Emilio PisantyCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:03
-
4$\begingroup$ Migration seems to be a very rare measure to take; I'm not sure how useful this discussion will be. Given the seemingly annoying nature of migrations; I don't see the merit in having migrate votes available. It can always be flagged for moderator attention if it should be moved. $\endgroup$– JMacCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:31
-
$\begingroup$ @JMac It is also the general stance of the SE. Although my opinion is different, I think having this answer for those who in general oppose the community-initiated question migrations, could make the survey result more clear. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:54
-
2$\begingroup$ Related on this meta: Should we include other StackExchange sites in the close vote options?, Additional choices for migration $\endgroup$– Emilio PisantyCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:55
-
$\begingroup$ @JMac The SE sites are very different in the number of the community migration pathes. The PSE is unusually small, thus having this little survey could make also clear, if the community doesn't want them, or which ones they want if it does. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 20:05
-
$\begingroup$ The survey is open, you can add your own answer if you have a better idea. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 20:12
-
3$\begingroup$ @peterh I wouldn't call PSE "unusually small" by any means. There are a lot of smaller sites on the SE network. PSE is moderately sized. Pedantics aside, I don't see this as a very productive meta discussion. Even if a lot of PSE meta users decide they want a migration tag, we can't give a fair representation of how that other SE site would feel about it. When you add in the general SE policies on this, I don't see much if any benefit from asking this question right now. $\endgroup$– JMacCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 20:48
-
$\begingroup$ @JMac As I wrote, the number of the migration pathes are unusually small. Sites with the size of the PSE have mostly much more migration pathes (they typically fill out the possible 5). $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 20:50
-
$\begingroup$ @peterh Not sure why you had to link back to it. Either way... that may have been what you intended but it was not what you wrote(and was the pedantic part of my comment anyways). $\endgroup$– JMacCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 20:54
-
4$\begingroup$ "Sites with the size of the PSE have mostly much more migration pathes (they typically fill out the possible 5)" - just plain wrong. For instance, math.SE (with more than 5 times the question/day physics.SE has) has only 2 migration paths (not counting meta), tex.SE (about the same traffic as we have) has no other migration path, electronics.SE (about the same) has only 1 path, softwareengineering.SE (about the same) has only 1 path, etc. Please back up your assertions. $\endgroup$– ACuriousMind ModCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 9:37
-
4$\begingroup$ @peterh That's a fallacious dodging of ACM's question - the SOFU triad is nowhere near comparable to this site, both in size and in interconnectedness to the rest of the SE sites. You claim above that "sites with the size of PSE typically fill out the possible 5" migration pathways. Please support that assertion with data that actually applies to the argument you're making. $\endgroup$– Emilio PisantyCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 10:29
-
1$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty The PSE is 9th largest site in the network, and the second largest non-IT one (after MathSE), and also the fastest growing. Nearly all the sites larger as the PSE have more than 1 community migration path, not counting the meta (and, tex has a very narrow and easily specifiable portfolio, while unix & linux is very inclusionist). $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 13:26
|
Show 1 more comment
13 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
18
Just to inform the discussion on the topic, for those without 10k+ access to the migration stats, here are the migration statistics as they currently stand:
The numbers mark the total migrations away from this site over the past 90 days. (The blank site up top is this meta.)
These are migrations away from the site implemented by direct moderator action, which is easily accessible to users via a custom moderator flag. It is then a question of opinion on whether these statistics represent an overwhelming load on the moderator team.
Also, just to put the above numbers in perspective, here is a rough map of SE-wide migration pathways from Is there a map of migration pathways?, which shows the kind of migration volumes that make automation worthwhile.
answered Jun 21, 2017 at 19:04
-
$\begingroup$ 1) I think this should be a comment, with a link to the screenshot. 2) Having a migration path would surely increase the question migration probability. 3) Worldbuilding is a nice idea, I add to the list soon. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:07
-
6$\begingroup$ @peterh You want to add worldbuilding to the list because there was a single question migrated there in the last 90 days, whose migration was rejected? Do you realize migration is not meant to be a way to shuffle bad questions around the network? $\endgroup$– ACuriousMind ModCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 9:46
-
$\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind In my opinion, WB could be useful for many questions currently closed as "non-mainstream". But it is only a survey, maybe the community has a different opinion. | I didn't mention anything about bad questions, migrations are about the good, but offtopic questions. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 10:02
-
3$\begingroup$ @peterh: Note that WB ...is a question and answer site for writers/artists using science, geography and culture to construct imaginary worlds and settings. It is not at all for taking our non-mainstream questions and giving them reasonable answers. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09
-
$\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Not all, but many of them. Typically, a significant part of the offtopic questions is coming from scifi idealists with only a lesser knowledge, if it results offtopic questions, then these questions may be well suitable for the WB. Note, the WB is a very inclusionist site, closure as offtopic is there rare. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 10:33
-
4$\begingroup$ @peterh You're fighting a non-problem. This is the kind of thing that would be worth fighting about if you had dozens of questions that were closed on this site that would be both migratable and valuable questions on the target sites. None of that is in evidence (despite the raw data being available for you to make that case) and until it is, this discussion is little more than wild hypotheticals and empty hyperbole on how useful the proposed changes would be. So: get your game up, and show that there is an actual problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 10:39
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty I think you miss the topic. It is a survey, to get a clear picture, which migration pathes would be preferred by the community. I don't fight. In my opinion, the most constructive attitude to this survey is to simply voting up the migration path ideas what you prefer, and voting them down, what you don't prefer. If you have another, here doesn't posted migration target what you find useful, then you could extend the answers with it (ideally, as a CW post). $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 10:46
-
5$\begingroup$ Worldbuilding mod here. Two things: 1) Physics has migrated 12 questions to Worldbuilding ever, which is less than one every two months. Out of those, at least a third have either been rejected or deleted, meaning that you're sending us a good question less than four times per year. 2) As @KyleKanos pointed out, we're not a site for sending your crappy questions to. I have had to dissuade plenty of would-be migrations from Physics in the past because of this. There is no benefit in a migration path to Worldbuilding. At all. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 16:47
-
-
$\begingroup$ I wrote a query to measure the site distances by the correlation coefficients of the tag distributions. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jul 6, 2017 at 6:27
-
1$\begingroup$ @peterh Unless your SQL can do context-aware natural language processing, I would think any such query is meaningless, but in any case I think the community opinion is pretty clear: this is a non-issue and it is not worth discussing it further. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2017 at 9:50
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty About to your first sentence: this query calculates the correlation coefficient between the tag distributions, handling various problems (for example, inconsistencies in the tag synonyms) correctly. This is what it does, no lesser and no more. If you want to say that it is not related to the question topic, that it doesn't help anything about the voting preferences, I think it would require a stronger support as a statement that you want context-aware natural language processing. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jul 6, 2017 at 10:55
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty To your second sentence: Maybe you misunderstood the text of the initiative. It wasn't "Do we want new migration paths on the site?", instead it was "What migration paths do we want on the site?". Furthermore, even if the question score is negative, documenting or extending the minority opinion can be still useful, particularly if there is an intention or long-term plan to reverse this score. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jul 6, 2017 at 10:56
-
1$\begingroup$ @peterh I'm pretty amazed by the hubris implicit in the claim that some short SQL lines can suss out, say, whether a question tagged analyticity on PSE has related tags on MO (hint: it does, but your query won't find them). As a subtler example, something that would go under fa.functional-analysis on MO would happily be tagged mathematical-physics here; can your query detect those types of close relationships? I would think the requirement for context-aware NLP was obvious, but apparently not everybody got the memo. Sure, you can get some numbers out, but so can a monkey with a typewiter. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2017 at 12:03
-
1$\begingroup$ And on the overall question, you're not documenting any "minority opinion" ─ the only thing that's been conclusively documented is that this whole thing is entirely unnecessary, that the current mechanisms are working just fine, that some of your proposed changes would actively alienate other communities, and that the only changes that would even begin to make sense are currently out-of-bounds. If you insist on separating those two questions, then the OP as posed relies on the flawed premise that any of this is necessary or wanted by the community. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2017 at 12:10
2
-
5$\begingroup$ Engineering is a beta site and SE will not set up user-selectable migration pathways to beta sites, so discussion on this pathway is moot. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:55
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty The technical possibility of a migration path to a beta site exists, it is another question if the SE wants to set it up. It is a survey, and the results won't be obligatory for anybody. My other relevant arguments can you read here. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:43
4
-
4$\begingroup$ Computational Science is a beta site and SE will not set up user-selectable migration pathways to beta sites, so discussion on this pathway is moot. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:55
-
$\begingroup$ It is sad. I could delete it, but I think this is currently a survey and the results won't be obligatory for anybody. Furthermore, they could become a full-featured site in the future. I personally would find a migration path to them useful, particularly in their beta stage, to quicken their grow-up, but it is only my personal opinion and the goal of the answer is to measure the opinion of the community. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:21
-
4$\begingroup$ That argument is diametrically opposed to SE's opinion on the topic: the idea is precisely to protect beta sites while they develop their own content, instead of feeding them the bad questions from other sites and hoping that that will sprout a functional community (as you can see if you read the linked thread). Given that they've guided 150+ sites to stability, I tend to trust them when they make that kind of judgement, but yes, it's ultimately a matter of opinion-weighed-by-experience. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:26
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty The technical possibility of a migration path to a beta site exists, it is another question if the SE wants to set it up. | I know the opinion of the SE, and I think mine is different. Roughly half of this 150 sites are in beta, and many of them have a stagnatic statistics, while many questions are closed on their larger "neighbours" as offtopic. (Best example is the Engineering SE). $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:39
2
-
4$\begingroup$ History of Science and Mathematics is a beta site and SE will not set up user-selectable migration pathways to beta sites, so discussion on this pathway is moot. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:56
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty The technical possibility of a migration path to a beta site exists, it is another question if the SE wants to set it up. It is a survey, and the results won't be obligatory for anybody. My other relevant arguments can you read here. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:43
7
-
$\begingroup$ Have ever migrated anything to chemistry? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 0:13
-
$\begingroup$ @KyleKanos My pleasure. Btw, the Chemistry SE is relative new and relative small between the graduated sites. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 1:10
-
$\begingroup$ so in the 5ish years chemistry had been around, we've sent like 30 or so questions? That's pretty worthless $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 1:14
-
$\begingroup$ @KyleKanos As you wish. The answer to your question is: 74. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 1:17
-
1$\begingroup$ even still, that amounts to slightly more than once a month. Still completely worthless. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 1:19
-
1$\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Communities tend to migrate questions more eagerly as mods. Furthermore, there are many physics questions on the ChemSE, having migration pathes into both directions could be the base of a mutually fruitful cooperation. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 22, 2017 at 1:26
-
$\begingroup$ Also, it might be useful to run that script on all of these sites & post them with they links so we can see how many migrations we've had from here to there over the course of the sites history. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 22:42
1
-
1$\begingroup$ Most of the career and school related question that we get here would get shot down in a hurry is migrated to academia. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 19:53
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
I generally oppose the community-initiated question migrations.
-
$\begingroup$ Upvote means, that you don't want community-initiated migrations. Downvote means, that yes, you want community-initiated migrations. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 21:36
1
-
2$\begingroup$ I oppose this for reasons I stated in this comment. Worldbuilding has received 12 questions from Physics in total; about one third have been rejected and/or deleted. The need simply isn't there. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 16:56
4
-
6$\begingroup$ This migration pathway already exists and it will not be removed by SE even if we asked them to (which would be silly, given that it's currently 70% of the migrations in the past 90 days), so this answer is pretty much completely futile. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2017 at 18:52
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty I personally find the migration path to the PSE Meta useful, thus I would vote it up. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:44
-
3$\begingroup$ Just to clarify: I downvoted because I think adding this to the discussion is explicitly counter-productive ('this answer is not useful'), not because I think the migration pathway should be removed. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:50
-
$\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty In this case it would be better to explain your view only in the comment, and not in the vote. I am nearly convinced to delete this answer. $\endgroup$– peterhCommented Jun 21, 2017 at 19:58