<p><em>Note: I was one of the close voters.</em>  </p>

<p>You are right that those questions are in the title. However, I interpreted 'how to fit this model in R?' as the real question.  (According to my reading, the central sentence is "I can fit the model using nls without a random effect, but am having trouble getting the model to converge".)  Things like 'what the name of the function is' could certainly stay here, but I interpreted most of that, including "can it be linearized", as looking for leads that would help the OP fit the model.  The OP listed some R code, and (while acknowledging the possibility of other software) would clearly have preferred a solution to fit the model in R.</p>

<p>The suggestion was made by someone who I suspect is very knowledgeable about these issues that the OP would be able to get the help he needs on Stack Overflow (which is my priority).  Therefore, I voted to migrate.  </p>

<p>I continue to hold that if the OP gets that help and is able to fit the model, the main issue will have been addressed, even if he never learns the function's name or if it could be linearized. </p>

<p>I respect the fact that people can have a difference of opinion on this.  I have always believed that the criterion for what site a given thread belongs on depends on what the OP needs explained.  This will always be an interpretive act on the part of the voter, sometimes more than others.  For example, there have been several occasions where I have voted <em>not</em> to migrate a question about R code, because I could see that the reason the OP had used the code incorrectly was because they misunderstood the underlying statistical issues.  Thus, explaining the code or correcting it would not have been a real solution; the OP just needed to understand the ideas and they would have been able to generate correct R code on their own.  Trying to figure out what an asker really needs / wants to know is tricky and people will occasionally get it wrong.  </p>
