7

Some of the other Stack Exchange sites have options for marking questions as "off-topic here, but suitable for [other site]". I notice that the majority of NE off-topic questions seem to be appropriate for either Server Fault or Super User. What would it take to get migration targets added to the off-topic rationales instead of the current catch-all?

2
  • Since there's a decent amount of home users hitting the site and asking questions, SuperUser would be a good 'Migrate To' target. Obviously not a dumping ground, but it would be more helpful than the current method of 'Closed as not relevant.'.
    – cpt_fink
    Nov 18, 2014 at 5:41
  • Is this question about close votes or flags? I can't see close votes but when flagging there are no migration targets other than Meta. Apr 15, 2016 at 17:56

1 Answer 1

2

What would it take to get migration targets added to the off-topic rationales instead of the current catch-all?

As the site leaves beta, and we have some well-established traditions around community close voting, adding a few specific migration targets makes sense.

It's easy to look at the long list of SE sites and assume you know where a question should go; however, that's often a mistaken perception unless you frequently post answers on the other site. FYI, the diamond mods are also encouraged to ask the target site's mods before we vote to migrate.

There are two common issues associated with migration:

  1. Questions that aren't terribly clear get migrated
  2. Questions that merely look on-topic for XYZ site site get migrated

I will also include some relevant information from a related answer on Meta SO:


Belongs On {site}

This should be used when a question is clearly intended for a different site in the Trilogy. This should only be used when you can clearly identify exactly which site the question should be on.

For example:

  • Configuration of a client on a Windows domain will likely belong on Server Fault.
  • Installing Windows on a PC will likely belong on Super User.
  • Developing a tool to aggregate information from various servers via WMI and ASDI will likely belong on Stack Overflow
  • A question about why one of the above belongs on its appropriate site clearly belongs on Meta Stack Overflow.

As you can see, there is some ambiguity in most of the above samples, but they all have a fairly clear home, based on the missions of the site.

When Should This Not Be Used

I'm with Jeff Atwood: When in doubt, don't migrate. Unlike other closures, migration is damned difficult to undo. Once migrated, the original question is locked, which takes closure to a new extreme by preventing commenting. Additionally, there is the possibility (actually, likelihood) that the OP does not have an account on the migrated-to site.

This should only be used when you are 100% certain that not only does the question not belong on the site where it was asked, but that it absolutely does belong on the site you are targeting with the migration.

NONE OF THE TRILOGY SITES (including Meta Stack Overflow!) ARE DUMPING GROUNDS!

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246/ne-migration-targets
networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
103988
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BJSPDO4SW4PZHKIYK2C6GQEHQ5IXZDYZ
<urn:uuid:eabbde3c-c441-4521-8a7a-21eb41d9bade>
2022-05-26T15:17:10Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:SRV6BAPXZO36V7UUPM3JTRGV6UOU67XL
<urn:uuid:4a46da4d-93f4-4caa-bf9c-8f6349ec209b>
https://networkengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246/ne-migration-targets
response
<urn:uuid:7ec735ed-4a0a-4858-bf56-8b0ac832b6d2>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-40
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/