A recent popular question asks about the status of a certain list of open problems. The OP answered his own question within 13 hours of asking it, and has now edited his answer 26 times, so that it is always on the front page. The OP discloses that he co-moderates a blog, and is gathering information for the blog. To me, this question/answer combo would be much more appropriate as a blog post or website, than as a mathoverflow post. I feel that mathoverflow is best when questions have an answer that can reasonably be believed to be fixed in time, rather than an answer that must be edited over and over again as problems are checked off the open problem list. There was another example years ago, and I held off on writing a giant CW answer that would be edited as problems were solved, because of this concern. Here is another example, where the question was edited 14 times as the OP learned more and more properties, and no satisfactory answer was possible, because it's impossible to enumerate all nice properties.
My questions are:
(1) Is the current question about Stanley's 1999 list appropriate, given that the answer will need to be edited in perpetuity to remain a correct answer in future years?
(2) In general, should we vote to close when we see questions like the three linked above, which require a zillion edits to create a big list?
Note that, when it was a question about the best LaTeX editor or a question about tools for collaboration, the community decided it would be better to have a new question to get updated answers, rather than constantly reviving the old question.