@JosephO'Rourke Yes, good point!

I totally agree with the final two sentences of quid's answer. This thread seems a bit pointless to me unless someone collects reasons directly from the "deserters" why they "deserted". (I've been busy! Leave me alone! (-: )

@fedja: Provided that people know exactly what they need for some research purpose, I'd suppose in many cases that the urge not to hone it down to the exact specification comes from a hunch that something more general (and more illuminating) could be said. It could of course also be paranoia, either in the sense you mentioned (concerns about stealing or being scooped), or alternatively in the sense that by exposing one's true thoughts, one might look stupid. I'm not sure which (of any) of these possibilities would apply to your test cases.

Re 2): impossible to answer. Rhetorical question? Re 1): sometimes, I guess. But I rather suppose that (and this can happen to anyone in the course of doing research) one doesn't always know exactly what one wants to ask. I think Halmos remarks on this in his automathography: often people seeking help are really looking for help finding the right questions rather than black and white answers. (For another data point, I had to guess what the OP really wanted here: mathoverflow.net/questions/141363/reference-for-stasheff-ope‌​rad/…). I think you're doing well here, @fedja.

@PietroMajer: many thanks for your response! I understand your own annoyance. Hopefully Ricardo's request can be implemented.

@RicardoAndrade Heh. It was good while it lasted. (Actually, I'm rather surprised, as I even went so far to flag one of the edited answers to get moderator attention, and figured the hiatus in activity was due to a discreet request from a moderator).

@RicardoAndrade: Thank you! That's a good request.

@TheMaskedAvenger I did that. No response.

I am a little surprised by the first two tags listed by Ricardo, since I know that DGA and SDG are entirely standard and instantly recognized abbreviations.

@YemonChoi: Actually, I think the main application of 'no longer relevant' in the old MO.1 days was toward a situation where a question did begin to attract subpar answers (contrary to Tim's first sentence). The idea being that a question, while maybe serving a useful purpose at one time, is now only attracting crap and should be put to rest, for the good of the site. This seems to me still a valid reason for closing. But not for deleting, as long as there are still some good and worthwhile answers there.

Theo, do you have a specific example in mind? It's often useful to have concrete instances around; otherwise the arguments pro and con can seem to be in a vacuum and perhaps miss relevant aspects that a specific example can bring to light.

This is my experience as well. It's probably healthiest to accept the fact, with a shrug of the shoulders, that MO voting cannot be controlled and is frequently ludicrous.

I agree with TL's sentiment in his comment under what I presume is the answer being referred to: the question was in fact flawed (and it's no good to say "well obviously OP meant such-and-such class of spaces" because maybe OP simply didn't think matters through). Whether the trivial counterexample is pointed out in a comment or in an answer is up to personal taste; one can sneer at the rampant upvoting but it doesn't seem right to me to punish what is in fact a correct answer to the question as stated. (Also: in MO.1 lingo, this meta post could be closed as "subjective and argumentative").

@MakotoKato Well, if you already understand all this, I now join the rest in wondering what the problem is. Did Michael Zieve answer your query satisfactorily at MSE?