Timeline for What, when and will we migrate questions to MO 2.0?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
80 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 10:07 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 18, 2012 at 13:05 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | I suspect the issue we're all dancing around here is reputation. A hypothesis would be that those professional mathematicians refuse to answer questions on MSE not because of undergrad cooties, but because it won't earn any MO reputation for them here. But if we're going there, then I certainly think I'm entitled to object to a policy implying that this-or-that question is so advanced that nobody must be allowed to earn MSE rep for answering it. | |
| Aug 18, 2012 at 12:58 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @HarryGindi: I have no trouble with professional mathematicians not wanting to deal with "too easy" questions. We all have criteria for what we personally find interesting. What I take issue with is the professional mathematicans who decide that therefore they don't want their writings to even appear on the same site that also contains uninteresting easy questions. Why not just ignore questions they are not interested in -- are they afraid they will get undergraduate cooties on their lofty writings or what? | |
| Aug 17, 2012 at 20:46 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @HenningMakholm: But seriously, why are you mad? Professional mathematicians generally don't like looking at easy highschool/undergrad homework that just clutters things up. I don't see why you think that it's snobbish for a mathematician to find some questions beneath him? MO is not an exclusive gated community. It's more like the pro-circuit in tennis, where a certain level of play is expected for participation. I feel like you're purposely being dense here. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 10:10 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: Also I don't think your argument from an overlap between the user bases holds. There is nothing that prevents from someone who identifies themselves primarily with B from also posting at the site for all of A sometimes. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 10:08 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: You're welcome to decide that you can personally tolerate interacting with the Fields-medalists-who-refuse-to-associate-with-the-rabble in order to receive the benefit of their answers. I don't think you ought to decide that only people who share that willingness should be allowed to answer certain questions. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 9:58 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: Certainly they have a right to exist. I just don't think the right to answer certain questions posted and on topic here should be limited to people who are willing to accept the MO value proposition. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 9:57 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @HenningMakholm It also seems to me like you are opposed to M on principle grounds. That might be legitimate, but I don't think the relations between sites on the stack exchange network should be defined by one of the sites not being viewed as having a right to exist. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 9:55 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @HenningMakholm Your division cannot be true. There are enough people in both MO and MSE. So posting at one place doesn't make one identify more with that group. I feel more at home at MSE, but for some questions, I prefer to rely on the expertise present at MO. I've counted once at least seven Fields medalists at MO. I am happy that I can benefit from such an even more selective group I clearly do not belong to. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 9:30 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | (And, frankly, my opposition to migration is in large part due to the fact that it would function as a way to coerce people into accepting the MO value proposition -- that some topics are only available to people who accept that). | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 9:26 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Arthur: After thinking it over I think what offends me about MO is this: Consider the groups A={x|x likes mathematics}, and B={x|x is a professional research mathematician}. MO is for people who identify more with group B than with group A -- not all people at MO may themselves be in B, but the moral price of admission is accepting the value proposition that B is the more important predicate. That feels to me a like a kind of treason to the universal and democratic character of mathematics. Even though MO may have things "right up my alley", I'm not willing to pay that price. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 6:51 | comment | added | user642796 | @Henning: I actually don't see much difference between MO restricting its domain of discourse to mathematical questions of a more advanced nature, and math.SE restricting its domain of discourse to real mathematics, as opposed to numerology, accountancy, or even philosophy of mathematics. In order to achieve some sort of coherency every SE site defines itself based on the types of questions they deem "acceptable". Further, I urge you to look at this recent MO question, posed by a self-described neophyte, and see if it might be up your alley. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 6:34 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, I don't think I have anything more to say if you don't agree that the anti-migration policy will make life less convenient either for users who ask questions or for users who read them. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 6:33 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, I think it does mostly boil down to convenience as I explained. Each suggested policy makes life less convenient for some users and more convenient for some other users. No one is forbidding anyone from reposting a question they want to answer, so they can answer the question if they want to. You assign more value to the convenience of potential future experts who may want to answer a migrated question more, I assign more value to the convenience of the current users who ask questions and read them. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 6:27 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, Sorry, I was replying to your comment part by part. It in "it is possible" refers to "possibility of posting answers to migrated questions on MSE". The claim you repeated is that migration will have a negative effect on MSE, sending incorrect messages and causing experts to leave. You have your experience, I have a different one, the discussion over the issue will not lead anywhere if the arguments are based on general personal experiences. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 6:15 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque Mod | @Kaveh Please write more clearly. I have no idea what "yes, but my point is it is possible" refers to. Nor do I have any clue what claims that you think I have repeated, since you don't say (nor do I see any). I don't have statistics, but I do have a complex neural network accumulating over three decades of experience in general-level math forums. Finally, I don't agree that the differences in our viewpoints boils down to trivialities such as matters of convenience for users. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 6:07 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, I participate on MO and cstheory as a researcher, I participate on MSE and CS.SE as a teacher, and others do also, so IMHO the concern about loosing experts to MO because of migration is exaggerated. I don't see evidence to support it and in the case that really happens we can revisit the migration policy in after a few months and change it to address the issue. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 5:59 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, ps: I don't think migration will necessarily send any wrong message about MSE, if we are careful in the implementation we can avoid such things (as I explained before). You may have a different view that it is not possible and I respect that. But simply repeating the claim is not going to change my view. If you have statistics or other evidence to support the claim please provide them, otherwise it is matter of opinion. My experience on cs.se shows that experts do not leave the site, in fact my impression is that we get more and more people participating from cstheory on cs.se. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 5:56 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, yes, but my point is it is possible (really possible). So the issue is convenience, your suggestion is less convenient for some users, my suggestion is less convenient for some other. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 5:33 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I don't know if this is the place to say it, but here goes: MO is not a monolithic organization. There is a great diversity of opinion there on how wide a variety of questions and answers should be welcomed. There are questions that get closed, and re-opened, and closed again, as one group or another gets the upper hand. So if anyone here has ever been made to feel unwelcome at MO, it's possible that you just ran into the hothead faction on a bad day. Please don't judge the whole of MO by the actions of an unrepresentative few. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 4:21 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque Mod | @Kaveh I don't agree that reposting new versions of migrated-and-closed questions is a viable solution. Potential answerers may never even see the question after it is closed, due to lower exposure of closed questions. Further, they may not feel comfortable reposting the question then answering it, nor should they have to jump through such hoops to do so. Also migration may send incorrect messages to the community - that such topics are not welcome here, when in fact they are. Our goal should be to implement policies that help attract (not repel) further expertise. | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 3:16 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, I think this is more optimal and better for the users in general and MSE community. You and Henning lean towards more work for the OP (in case OP maintains copies) or for the readers (in case OP does not maintain copies). Whichever policy we adopt everyone can still do the things they want, it just may require more work on the part of some users. (I think your other concerns in the comment can be addressed and doesn't imply an anti-migration policy, and I have explained my view towards them in my answer and comments above.) | |
| Aug 15, 2012 at 3:13 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Bill, sorry for late reply. It took me sometime to read the comments. As said to Henning, I don't see the decision as dramatic. If a user wants to post an answer to a migrated/closed/... question they can still post a new version of it and answer that. Same applies to people who want to have their their answers on MO. I think this is mostly about what is more convenient to different parties. My view is to have least work for reader, lesser work for the OP, more work for those who may want to post an answer to a migrated question that remained unanswered for a considerable period of time. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 23:07 | comment | added | Brian M. Scott | @Henning: Perhaps I should have said apparent extreme animosity; it actually has come across that way even to me, and my view on migration is pretty much the same as yours. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 23:02 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Brian: There's no "extreme animosity" here. I just recognize MO as a club that has defined themselves as being not for me. That is fine. I just won't have them coming over here and dictating what I can and can't do outside their club. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 22:53 | comment | added | Brian M. Scott | @Michael: I don’t share Henning’s extreme animosity towards MO, and I do have the formal credentials, albeit they’ve been gathering rust for many years, but I frankly don’t feel comfortable at MO and have no desire to participate. It does (to me) have a bit of the feel of an old boys’ club, and I’ve seen comments here and elsewhere that suggest that I’m not alone in this. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 22:48 | comment | added | Brian M. Scott | @JDH: I don’t go to parties to have questions answered. In the relevant context one adequate interaction is sufficient. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 22:45 | comment | added | JDH | @Brian, if you went to a party where most people ignored you and few spoke to you, but next door was another party full of people wanting to interact with you, then I would say you were not really appreciated at the first party in comparison with the second. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 22:33 | comment | added | Brian M. Scott | @JDH: I fail to see how ‘low views, low votes and few answers here’ is an indication that such questions are not really appreciated here. This is a diverse group. Whether the part of it that is the audience for a particular question or type of question is large or small is independent of the extent to which it appreciates the question or type of question. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 22:27 | comment | added | Brian M. Scott | @Michael: I have seen answers of that type not just upvoted, but accepted at MSE. Whether you would have to provide intuition, etc., depends very much on the nature of the question and what can be reasonably inferred about the knowledge base of the OP. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 21:02 | comment | added | JDH | Henning, aren't your loud comments throughout this discussion a bit overblown? I urge you simply to create an MO account and start participating there, if those are the kinds of questions and answers that interest you (your objection about being constitutionally unable to do so notwithstanding). In addition, your repeated claim that math.SE welcomes questions at all levels is not really true (despite the FAQ), since the highly technical questions in question typically receive low views, low votes and few answers here. Clearly, they are not really appreciated here. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 19:00 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: So either site would reject some answers that the other one welcomes. Is that somehow an argument that it would be a good thing to insist that one of the sites must not allow answers of its own to it? I don't see it. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 18:48 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @HenningMakholm There are also MO-answers that would get downvoted at MSE. On MO I can write as an answer "That follows from theorem 4 in the following paper in the Kazhakstan Journal of Mathematics.." On MSE I would have to carefully explain it provide intuition etc. In terms of answers, MSE is rather less welcoming. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:20 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Asaf: Again, even if I were provided with personal "tolerated guest" status on MO, I could never be a member of that community -- because that community is explicitly defined by the interests of a specific set of people that excludes me. Such a definition would implicitly make me a second-class citizen there no matter how welcoming the behavior of the people making up the community. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:11 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Arthur: My feelings towards cstheory.SE are exactly the same; the other two I don't know enough about to have an opinion. My position is that questions that are already on-topic where they are should never be migrated from an all-levels-welcome site like MSE to a restricted-audience one. // The fact that I might not be personally unwelcome on MO provides no relief if the answer I would have posted on MSE is unwelcome on MO (because I don't write like a research mathematician -- I don't know enough to pepper my answers with up-to-date literature citations, for example). | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:08 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I'm pretty sure this isn't what I said. I just said he liked it and knew a lot on the topic. I am also sure that you know about logic a lot more than some of the experts on MO (maybe not the logicians, but probably more than people whose expertise is in hard analysis for example). If you think that von Neumann had a place in byzantine.SE, I don't see why you belittle yourself so much that you think that you have no place in MO. There are several users on MO which are not researchers at all, no one is making their life difficult for that. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:05 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Asaf: What you seem to me saying is that von Neumann was a Byzantine history researcher, even though he may not have earned an income being one. Of course, then, he would be welcomed on a site specifically dedicated to a group he was a prominent member of. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 16:02 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Henning: In the Wikipedia entry about von Neumann it says he was a big fan of Byzantine history, and supposedly knew more about it than experts on the field. If he were alive today, do you think he would refrain from posting on a site dedicated for Byzantine history researchers - just because he happens to be a mathematician? There is no fire squad on MO shooting every non-mathematician person posting on the site. The worst case is that your post will be closed, the best case is that it will generate six highly voted answers and two papers. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 14:29 | comment | added | user642796 | @Henning: From the MO faq: "There are several broad categories of questions that should not be asked on MathOverflow. ... If your question is closed, please don't take this to mean that you are not welcome on the site, or think that this will be held against you in the future. A lot of active users have had questions closed at one point or another." (emphasis mine) | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 14:29 | comment | added | user642796 | @Henning: I still find the animosity you direct towards MO quite perplexing. Do you have the same feelings towards cstheory.SE? academia.SE? libraries.SE? Should math.SE stop migrating any questions to these other exclusionary and elitist sites? (Okay, migration to libraries.SE is a bit of a stretch, but cstheory.SE clearly overlaps.) | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 14:11 | comment | added | Charles Staats | @Henning: People make judgements all the time about what will be interesting to other people whose interests diverge from their own--for instance, when selecting gifts. I think this is the spirit in which the MO FAQ are written. Certainly, a research mathematician will not feel free to post anything at all on MO if he finds it interesting; he will try to predict whether it will be interesting to other research mathematicians. Making such predictions is harder for someone who is not a research mathematician, but not impossible. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:25 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: Of course not. A research mathematician who wants to post something on MO can do so immediately because he is a research mathematician and he finds it interesting, and therefore it is on topic. Their FAQ says "at least one". The point is that by their own definition, I am constitutionally unable to judge whether something is on-topic there. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:24 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque Mod | @Kaveh This does not solve the problem raised in my answer. By migrating, the question would be closed on MSE, so we would completely lose the capability to post such highly pedagogically valuable multi-level answers. This is too high a cost to pay. Moreover, it could lead to a sharp divide in level between MO and MSE, which would probably cause many experts to leave. Again, far too high a price to pay. For forums with overlapping scope, cross-posting is the only reasonable solution. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:24 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: By the way I have no way to judge whether the people on MO are arrogant snobs. Probably they are not; most people in general aren't. The site concept, on the other hand is elitist and exclusionary. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:23 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @Henning Now things are getting absurd. If that were the only means, every research mathematician would need to find another research mathematician to confirm that something is of interest to research mathematicians before posting on MO. A more enjoyable way to gather information on what is apprpriate on MO is browsing MO. You might actually see something you like there. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:21 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | Since my personal circle of acquaintances includes zero research mathematicians, that would be a rather big hurdle for me to clear. Well, I suppose I could ask it as a question on MSE: "Is the following text worthy of being posted at MO?" | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:20 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: The eight accounts I have are all on sites with open participation policies. In contrast, MO is an exclusive forum, defined as being for "things that are interesting to research mathematician". Consequently, even though the software will let me create an account there, I can't actually (in good faith) post there without first finding a research mathematician and getting him to certify that what I'm about to post is within the scope of the site -- because the scope of the site is explicitly defined by the subjective tastes of a group of people that doesn't include me. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:12 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @Henning: You seem to have eight accounts on the SE network. Getting a ninth account shouldn't be that big of hurdle. If you are not willing to post there because you think everyone there are arrogant snobs, that's fine. But it is strange to say you can't answer a question after it is moved to MO. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:54 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: And if you're concerned about "effort for potential answerers", then I'm going to ask you again: What about potential answerers who are not research mathematicians? | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:51 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: "I personally don't like answering a question which has been answered sufficiently on another site and my impression is that there are others who feel similarly" -- since I'm okay with crosslinks between the two questions (possibly even automatically generated), nothing stops you from checking whether the question has already been answered on the other site before you write yours. On the other hand, you solution would prevent me from answering the question no matter whether it has an answer anywhere or not. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:49 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @MichaelGreinecker: As long as there is some intersection between interesting questions and questions that MSE users are not allowed to post answers to, harm is being done. One doesn't need to be a subset of the other for the harm to MSE to arise. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:48 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: I don't see how a solution that carries a risk of such problems is conceivably worse (for me, or for anyone else) than a solution that guarantees that I won't be allowed to post an answer at all. If given a choice between the chance to answer a potentially out-of-date question, and no chance to answer it at all, I find the first option unambiguously superior. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:37 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, assume that you post an answer and the OP replies that they have clarified the question on another site and your answer is not relevant to what they are asking. To avoid such situations the readers would need to check the copies to make sure we are not missing any important information about the question. I find it annoying and a waste of time to go to another site and reread the copy there to make sure I am not missing any significant information about the question. And any reader who is interested in the question would need to do this so much more work than the other options. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:34 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, the problem is similar to the problem about cross-posting: cross-posting duplicates effort and fractures discussion, a reader may be unaware of the answers/comments/clarification that has happened on another site, essentially missing a large of the information about the question. I personally don't like answering a question which has been answered sufficiently on another site and my impression is that there are others who feel similarly. In short, unmaintained copies means more effort for readers and potential answerers and IMHO that is worse than requiring more effort from OP. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:32 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @Henning: I don't understand your view that the questions that would get transferred are inherently somewhat more interesting. Most questions n MO are quite boring to most research mathematicians. These are questions for a very specialized, small audience, much smaller than "all research mathematicians". There are actually lots of complaints on MO meta about this trend. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:23 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: But what if we don't maintain the two copies in perfect synchrony? The worst that can happen is that MSE will contain answers to a slightly different question than a question on MO. How can that conceivably be a worse outcome than those answers-to-a-slightly-different-question not existing at all? | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:21 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, as a theoretical computer scientist, significant means there is a constant $c>0$ s.t. $\mathsf{Pr}[Event_n] > \frac{1}{n^c}$ for infinitely many $n$, where $n$ is the problem size. :) | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:18 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, I don't have any concerns that can only be address by preventing MSE users from posting answers. My concern is regarding maintaining multiple copies of the same question. If that can be done effectively I don't see any reason not to keep an open copy on MSE after migration. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:16 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, closure of a migrated question is a SE "feature" and they have reasons for it (I think they were not thinking about posts which can be on-topic on several sites when they designed most of the software, would they change it now? I feel it is not very likely). One possibility is to reopen the question after migration to get two copies but similar to what I wrote above IMHO it would still need the effort on OP's part to maintain them. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:14 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: I wish I could understand which concerns of yours that can apparently only be addressed by preventing MSE users from posting answers to certain questions. If I could understand what bad thing would follow from a late-arriving answer being posted by an MSE user after the question has been posted on MO too, perhaps I would be able to find something that could address those concerns of yours. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:12 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, yes, I don't think it will have a significant effect. But I don't have any statistics to argue objectively about it. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:12 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: As I said, I would not oppose a software feature that automatically cloned a question on MO and automatically inserted links back and forth. If the two copies diverge, then I don't see how MO is worse off than if the answers on MSE had not been allowed to exist at all. And from MSE's side, having the question here is certainly better than not having it here. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:11 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, your point about how to determine if a question has not received a satisfying answer is valid. One can think of it as when the question does not have any upvoted answers (possibly also when the OP explicitly states that the answers are not satisfying). I think something similar addressing your concerns should be possible. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:10 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: You don't think it will have a significant effect on a potential answerer that he gets told "to answer this question you need to create an account on MO" or "you can answer this question with an MSE account". Which of those two messages do you think is likely to make the potential answerer becoming an MSE user? Not to mention: which of those two messages to you think would make a potential answerer who is not a research mathematician comfortable with answering the question at all? | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, that is true that the original copy is unanswerable (unless a moderator unlocks and reopens the question, which can be done independently from MO). However I don't think it will have a significant effect on potential askers and answerers if we keep the question here for a long enough time before migrating and etc. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:03 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, reposting can be a possibility, however there are also issues with it. I think a reasonable implementation of a reposting policy should require the OP to maintain the copies, I think it is more annoying to see an unanswered question on MSE which is not really unanswered but no one is posting an answer to it because it is answered somewhere else. It will need a higher effort from the OP. I think we can see this as a trade-off between the work that an OP will do and the work a person who wants to answer a migrated question would need to do. I am leaning towards less effort for askers. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:59 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: I don't see how what you present as mitigations to (3) address the problem at all. None of these efforts are going to change the fact that the questions are then not answerable on MSE anymore. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:58 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: Your proposal are about "questions that have not received any satisfying answers within some time". Who is to decide what is satisfying? And what if the question doesn't receive any satisfying answers on MO within that period of time? Will we get the question back, then, or does MO get to hoard all of the really good questions? Hypothetical future users who are not MSE users at the moment are my concern. If they take a look here and find that the most interesting questions cannot be answered here, do you think they are going to become MSE users (is they qualify for MO)? | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:54 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, regarding 3, I completely agree with your intention, we should find a way that will not give such an impression. However I think this can be done through other means to reasonable extent. E.g. by not migrating questions too early, informing the OP about the migration, and avoiding doing so if the OP objects (so the OP has the final say over the issue), by avoiding migrating answered questions, etc. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:53 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Kaveh: I'm okay with the OP asking for migration because it is not worse than the OP deleting his question here (which he can already do) and then reposting it manually on MO. But that's just a practical matter -- author-initiated deletions are for questions that the author has been convinced are bad questions. Questions that turn out to be unexpectedly good should not be closed or deleted at MSE if I had my say. The OP is free to also post them on MO if he wants to, and I would not object to a software "clone this question on MO" feature, if only it did not close the question here. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:48 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, regarding 1, it is not about MO, it is about OP. The OP may want to first post the question on MSE or may not be aware of MO or suitability of the question there. You seem to agree that migration can be acceptable if the OP ask for migration, I don't think that this is much different from that situation (i.e. your points would apply to that situation also). | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:45 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Henning, let me shortly reply, starting with simpler ones: regarding 2, the policy is about unanswered questions, so I don't think removing reputation is a concern. And if the period between asking and migration is long enough the MSE users will have time to answer the question if they want and can. (Hypothetical feature users who are not MSE users at the moment is not a major concern in m view as I wrote in the answer.) | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:38 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | As for (3), it is clearly in the best interest of the MSE community that we don't tell potential askers that such-and-such questions are not welcome here, simply because they have sat for a while, and it is in the best interest of the MSE community that we don't tell potential answerers that answers to such-and-such questions are not welcome here. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:37 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | As for (2), it is the best interest of the users who answered the question on MSE that their answer is not removed from MSE and their rep earned by them is not taken away from the. It is the best interest of users who might later want to answer the question on MSE that they be allowed to do so. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:35 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | As for (1), if the OP wants to ask his question on MO, and MO wants to allow him to do that, they should provide him with a way to ask the question there that does not involve removing it from MSE. It is not the task of MSE to be an antechamber for MO where questions can be posted while MO contemplates whether they want them or not. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:23 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixing typos, apologies for the updates.
|
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:16 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:11 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | If I could upvote twice, I would! | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:04 | history | answered | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |