I aked the question, Compiler targeting LLVM written in .NET language (F#) — best route? , which received 2 close votes.
Upon asking why, John Palmer explained that it's because "best way to __" questions aren't suited for SO.
So I changed the title to "How to target LLVM from a compiler written in F#?", and removed the paragraph where I bring up several options that I've considered, and I received a good answer. Understandably, the word "best" was setting off alarms.
Hours later, the question was closed with 3 additional votes.
The FAQ says that such questions "will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling or extended discussion". That is clearly not the case here; my purpose in providing a few examples of things that might work and then asking for the "best", was to show that I had done my own research, because last time I asked a question, another user suggested that would be closed for "being too localized and not having shown own research".
John notes that this question is also too broad, and that "SO questions are best when they are like: I tried to do
x - here is my code
... but this part gives me a compiler/runtime error" -- which was the exact format of my other question, and it still offended people.
There are also plenty of questions of this kind, including a similar and related one with 21 upvotes -- which in fact is a "best way to _" question disguised as a "hesitating between" question with even less of a clear conclusive answer. (By the way, this question is also not "not constructive" by any measure, evidenced by the very good and completely uncontentious answer it received with 19 votes up and 0 down.)
So one of my questions was closed because it wasn't about any particular bug or error in my code, and showing my own research partially made it a choice question. The one before it was threatened because it was "too localized" because it was a question about a particular error message, and because I didn't show my own research.
I feel as though people are having way too much fun with the close button. People are seemingly looking for any painfully contrived reason to use it, and having a (1) or a (2) next to it seems to be good enough.