3

I know that there's a perpetual problem of questions that are really not a good fit getting migrated over from SO, so I don't think this is news to anyone.

However, there seems to be a recent influx of migrated questions (I can probably count 10+ over the past 3 days, at least) pertaining to highly localized situations (career-oriented, but I won't pick on anyone) that can only help the individual that is asking the question. Normally, I think that these questions are closed on SO and not migrated.

Is there a situation that has changed very recently that has prompted this influx? Is this worth re-addressing on Meta.SO?

  • 2
    It's actually down from about a month ago: 31% reject rate vs. November/December's 33%. Of course, we were at ~23% in August/September... – user8 Jan 9 '12 at 9:01
  • @MarkTrapp It just seemed like it spiked. Interesting about the numbers. – jonsca Jan 9 '12 at 9:06
  • @MarkTrapp I think the numbers are falling in general (as shown), but spikes do creep in from time to time. I can't, for the life of me figure out what causes the spikes. Perhaps it's just random (not the user). – Tim Post Jan 9 '12 at 9:28
  • I think the real problem is the plethora of programming related stack-exchange sites. Do we really need SO+programmers+review+gamedev+webapps+api/apps+dba (gah there's no end to them, when did this happen?). Just implement better tagging/filtering in SO, and move everything back, IMO. – ergosys Jan 13 '12 at 21:40
  • @ergosys How does that solve the off-topic problem? With that approach, there would be even more off-topic junk on SO. Lose/lose. – jonsca Jan 14 '12 at 0:32
  • This depends on your definition of "off-topic junk". Tag filtering on SO sucks, so I understand the position. I'd rather have seen tags and filtering improved first before creating a plethora of mini programming communities. I don't think that's going to fly. I've answered & gotten credit for game related question on SO, but I'm not a game developer, and will never visit that site. It's diluting the audience for questions. – ergosys Jan 14 '12 at 0:54
4

Migrations from Stack Overflow are overwhelmingly by five community members - moderators from either site aren't involved. Where moderators do get involved is usually to stop these migrations from occurring.

It could well be that moderators on both sides are spotting less of these potential migrations and hence more of them are going through.

What can be done?

Well - if you have enough reputation of Stack Overflow you can use the /review pages to look for potentially bad migrations and either add a non-migratory close vote or flag the question for a Stack Overflow moderator to stop the migration. Don't forget that it takes 4 migration votes for a question to be moved so if two (or more) people vote to just close as off topic the migration won't happen.

You could also add a comment to the question explaining that it's a bad migration. This might educate a few more Stack Overflow users, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Ultimately the solution is for us all to be more active on Stack Overflow.

5

(Tongue in cheek): this is all my fault, ask ChrisF ...

Really, I do try to stop bad migrations, so do the rest of the mods. We just don't get to them in time in some cases.

I don't think bringing this up on Meta SO again is going to help much. While some bad migrations are happening, we're stopping a large number of them. Take this for example, where I was on the fence and wanted to check with the mods before sending it over.

Chris is spot on with leaving comments indicating doubt that the question would be well received here. That leaves breadcrumbs for our users, as well as us [the moderators].

The people that vote against bad migrations (or flag us to stop them) are the people that keep up on meta. I think what needs to be addressed are the people that don't keep up with meta, and comments would work quite well with that. Feel free to also follow up with an 'other' flag to alert us that you feel the question would not be a good fit.

Finally, Anna having a diamond on both sites has really helped. Still, even with all of that in place, a few are going to get shipped over that really should have been closed. I do concur with the number going up a bit recently, so we [as moderators] will try to be sure to leave comments when blocking bad migrations.

  • Yes, I figured it would be better to bring it up here, but thanks for affirming that it is not necessary to bring it up on Meta.SO. – jonsca Jan 9 '12 at 9:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/recent-shift-in-off-topic-migrations/2806
softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
136479
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VCTMITCDRI5R72IIO6577AOVMSJY3JO5
<urn:uuid:545ae966-6779-47ad-aca2-3fb219d7f285>
2021-01-15T13:57:56Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:FQEHVF6OFOE6BBT3W6ZGOVUNLJ2UVZ2F
<urn:uuid:4211afe0-d78f-4af2-a006-2f7ce72177c2>
https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/recent-shift-in-off-topic-migrations/2806
response
<urn:uuid:54c51780-bd13-44b2-a63b-d5c2c18cb72f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-99.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/