8
\$\begingroup\$

This question was migrated to the Arduino SE just now: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/165121/analogic-audio-via-arduino

In theory, I agree that it's clearly in Arduino territory as it's asking about a shield. However, as was noted in a comment here on EE, it doesn't have nearly enough information to be answerable. As such, I had to close it on our end, which resulted in the migration simply being rejected by the system.

In line with SE guidelines, I'd like to ask you guys not to migrate unanswerable questions. All it does is create unnecessary work and confusion.

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ You say that it should be fixed up here (ie: we talk to the user until we get enough details + edit them in) then migrated to Arduino. Dave thinks that it should be the other way around: if we recognize that it's an Arduino question, we let you fix it up (to match the Arduino site standards). Which one of these guidelines should we follow? \$\endgroup\$
    – Greg d'Eon
    Apr 16, 2015 at 16:05
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps that question was a poor fit for your site - that's your call - but it absolutely was total crap here. Such questions will be closed and downvoted to oblivion here. If you feel they are not for your site, then that's the only option. \$\endgroup\$
    – Olin Lathrop
    Apr 16, 2015 at 16:32
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @Gregd'Eon I'm not necessarily saying you guys need to fix it up. What I'm saying is that you guys shouldn't be migrating questions that are clearly low quality. This is about SE guidelines, not site-specific standards. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Bloomfield
    Apr 16, 2015 at 18:25
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Then only people who are experts here and for arduino should be able to migrate, since only those know if it is answerable within arduino.se. A lot of people here can only judge that its a bad fit for EE.SE and it seems related to arduino. But I don't think that with "If in doubt, close it" is the most helpful option. \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    Apr 17, 2015 at 10:25
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The question is understandable enough (I'd hope). Olin's total crap filter is automatically triggered the word "Arduino" and his judgement is from then on clouded and unreliable - even if he happens to be correct in a given case :-). || The OP has an analog signal which has been originated by a microcontroller and he wants to transmit it "via wireless". There is much that we do not know that he needs to tell us BUT a polite set of the obvious questions would be vastly (almost infinitely given what usually happens in cases like this) more useful to the user and either site .... \$\endgroup\$
    – Russell McMahon Mod
    Apr 17, 2015 at 18:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ .... than triggering people's totalcrapdownvoteto oblivionpavlovian responses. | If this question had not contained the words Arduino and shield it MAY have been treated differently. \$\endgroup\$
    – Russell McMahon Mod
    Apr 17, 2015 at 18:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterR.Bloomfield I too disagree with the handling BUT it's hardly unanswerable. One needs to know actual application, requisite bandwidth, range, power budget and more BUT the core question is "how can I transmit an analog signal wirelessly". Hardly unanswerable per se if proper details were known. I think. \$\endgroup\$
    – Russell McMahon Mod
    Apr 17, 2015 at 18:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Gregd'Eon we shouldn't follow people, but SE guidelines, like the ones Peter linked to. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17592
    Apr 18, 2015 at 18:23

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
8
\$\begingroup\$

Here's my point-of-view on this issue:

The question was not answerable because it did not have anywhere near enough information. That's nothing to do with anybody's expertise. The question was inherently low quality.

Consequently, Stack Exchange guidelines indicate it should not be migrated.

See this post for information: What are the guidelines for flagging posts for migration to another site?

In particular, refer to this point:

It must be a high quality post. If you would vote to close the post on the source site (with the exception of off topic), then it more than likely be closed for the same reason on the destination site. We don't migrate crap.

It's certainly not my place to say how you run EE, as I'm not regularly part of this community. However, please ensure you follow general SE guidelines when dealing with other sites.

As a side note, the approach we take to low quality questions on Arduino SE is to put them on hold until they are answerable (which may or may not involve discussion in the comments). As far as we're concerned, this is again in line with the general SE approach. The result of doing this is that a migrated question gets automatically sent back.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

My 2 cents: As I was the person who applied the initial "migrate" flagging on the post in question - I think the principle should be:

  1. Determine if the original post (on EE.SE) has enough information to make a target for migration to Arduino.SE (e.g. it is asking specifics on how to use/program for a particular "shield"). This should be based on the knowledge a typical EE.SE expert has, not based on the knowledge an Arduino.SE expert has.
  2. If there is not enough detail to make determination 1., ask more questions on EE.SE about the Electrical Engineering parts of the question (or about its relevance to EE)
  3. If the OP provides more details and those details indeed justify a migration, migrate the post (with the clarifying comments)
  4. If the OP does provide more details and they show clearly an EE-related problem, keep it on EE.SE
  5. If the OP does NOT respond, mark the post for Closure.

In the case of the specific post in question, the details provided talked only about Arduino specific topics which EE.SE experts cannot refine further (out of their knowledge scope) so it was migrated to Arduino.SE. Arduino.SE then applie(s/d) their community standards and either does more questioning on the matter, or votes to close the question.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That is of course unless Arduino.SE does not want any migrations PERIOD, in which case the action in my items 1. and 3. just becomes "Close" instead of "Migrate" \$\endgroup\$
    – Phil B.
    Apr 16, 2015 at 17:04
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this is exactly right. No question should be migrated until it clearly belongs on a different site, and an extremely poor question does not clearly belong anywhere. Since OP came here, we should be the first "point of contact" in trying to turn a bad question into a good question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Greg d'Eon
    Apr 16, 2015 at 18:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Gregd'Eon: The problem is that a good question for Arduino.SE is very different from a good question for EE.SE. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dave Tweed
    Apr 16, 2015 at 19:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ "the details provided talked only about Arduino specific topics which EE.SE experts cannot refine further (out of their knowledge scope)" - this does not make sense. There's quite an overview between the two topics. If we would be taking about, say, a migration to Music.SE, that may be different... \$\endgroup\$
    – user17592
    Apr 17, 2015 at 6:04
0
\$\begingroup\$

This was NOT a bad migration.

This is clearly a person who has a remote-sensing problem to solve, and wants to use an Arduino to solve it. This is exactly the sort of thing that Arduino was designed for.

You are being too hasty in closing such questions on your end. Instead, you should be working with the user to refine his question and provide hints as to the Arduino-based hardware and software components that might help him.

\$\endgroup\$
13
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ While I agree that's how I imagine arduino.SE working, what Peter is saying is that's not how it actually does work. I'm not a member there, so I see that as his call to make. I guess that means we need to simply close such questions here instead of migrating them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Olin Lathrop
    Apr 16, 2015 at 16:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In particular, Peter, as a moderator, is being too hasty in closing questions like this single-handedly, instead of allowing his community reviewers to make that decision. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dave Tweed
    Apr 16, 2015 at 17:11
  • 12
    \$\begingroup\$ It was a low quality post, and therefore should not have been migrated. See here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/150276/… \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Bloomfield
    Apr 16, 2015 at 18:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That is a phenomenally useful link and you should edit it into the question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Greg d'Eon
    Apr 16, 2015 at 18:32
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Seriously, the heavy handed moderation advising here complaining about moderation there. All of these problem migrations are moderator initiated, not community-based actions. \$\endgroup\$
    – Passerby
    Apr 16, 2015 at 19:28
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Passerby: Are you here just to snipe, or to contribute usefully to the debate? Migrations from EE to Arduino can only be done by diamond mods, and in fact, this particular one was initiated by a community reviewer flag. So what's your point? \$\endgroup\$
    – Dave Tweed
    Apr 16, 2015 at 20:13
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ A single flag does not a community make \$\endgroup\$
    – Passerby
    Apr 16, 2015 at 20:40
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ And realize you are sniping on a specific mod of another stack because he didn't agree with your short sighted hasty migration. \$\endgroup\$
    – Passerby
    Apr 16, 2015 at 20:42
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ This wasn't a bad migration. It was an awful one. It was just like throwing trash over the fence into your neighbors yard. The rule is simple: don't migrate trash. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ricardo
    Apr 17, 2015 at 0:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Ricardo: You mean "don't migrate what could have a chance of being trash" \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    Apr 17, 2015 at 10:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DaveTweed: I dont know how their community works in detail but I can well imagine that he was elected because no one wants to bother with closing stuff and he does it just how everyone wants. \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    Apr 17, 2015 at 20:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @PlasmaHH: Peter wasn't elected at all. He was appointed moderator pro-tem on 2014-2-28 when the site went into public beta. They still haven't had a community election for moderators. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dave Tweed
    Apr 17, 2015 at 20:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DaveTweed: oh, but that site already felt so old... ^^ \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    Apr 17, 2015 at 20:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .