I've spent a fair amount of time going through problematic questions. In my experience, it is rather more common that when a user with < 250 rep or so asks a question that can't be answered in its current state, they proceed to mostly abandon it or fail to clarify appropriately. And while I will grant that closing was done too quickly in this case, the closing would have been fully justified otherwise.
The original question was:
- If taken at face value, impossible to solve
- If assumed solvable, badly incomplete
Given the later clarification added, I've since voted to reopen, but I also note that after being clarified the question is essentially off-topic and thus warrants closing anyway. Migration is all well and good, but there's nothing to stop someone from simply reposting the question in the appropriate location. The main purpose of migrating, as I understand it, is to preserve history and existing answers; in this case the answers are all useless (as they're responding to the original, invalid form of the question) and there's nothing else useful to carry over.
After sleeping on it I'd like to lay out my thoughts on how things should be handled and where it went wrong in this case:
The question, in its original form, absolutely warranted closing:
As SO's user base has grown, it's been a consistent theme that the Q&A nature should be enforced rigorously, and to me that implies that questions should be clearly answerable. When a question "How do I do X" attracts two answers in 20 minutes saying roughly "you can't, X is impossible on multiple levels", that seems clear evidence that the question "cannot be reasonably answered".
Making the charitable (and in this case, correct) assumption that the poster does have a reasonable question in mind, this question was missing multiple critical pieces of information, later added at bdonlan's prompting. Prior to that, the question was objectively ambiguous/incomplete.
The suggestion in the comments that the close votes were initiated by linux users who disliked the idea is utter nonsense. The first close vote was from someone who doesn't really look like a linux fanboy; the second was from me, and I've voted to close at least one or two similar questions of the form "how can I subvert the user experience on Windows for unclear reasons".
Closing a question before the OP has a chance to clarify is also absolutely fine, for essentially the reasons that Cody Gray gives. I don't see any value to a grace period past maybe 5 minutes or so--enough time for the OP to post, realize they made a mistake, and fix it immediately.
However, as outlined in Cody's post linked above, there are two reasons for closing promptly, and neither really worked out in this case:
The question still ended up with three uselessly speculative answers based on incomplete information. Incidentally, a tip of the hat to bdonlan for keeping the site tidy and deleting his as soon as the clarifications obsoleted it.
Getting the user to notice and prompting them to fix the question was unnecessary, because Skkard was already doing so. The question was edited 7 minutes after posting, then again 24 minutes later with the significant info, at which point it had already accumulated 4 no-longer-accurate votes to close. I cannot imagine close votes being in any way a motivation for a user without enough rep to see them.
In short, Skkard was being exactly the sort of "particularly conscientious user" Cody brushed aside in the post giving reasons to close promptly. It is important to remember that this is very much atypical. Far more common when I'm reviewing questions with close votes, particularly from low-rep users, is to find an ill-formed question asked X hours ago, where X is also the last time the user was active on the site, and no indication of when they'll return. Questions like that should be closed with extreme prejudice.
In my view, the mistake in this case--by which I mostly mean my own mistake, since I can't really speak for the other four who voted to close--was hastily concluding that it was another instance of a fire-and-forget bad question, rather than one the user was actively improving based on feedback.
However, I don't think it would be helpful to split NARQ into more specific reasons, and I really don't think it would be wise to add any significant limitation on closing. No amount of editing could save a question like "I want to write an operating system in PHP, is using Zend appropriate for this, also please give me some example code quickly" and it would make me very sad if I couldn't vote to close it. Very, very sad.
Given the above, a concrete proposal: Display, in a location easily visible when adding a close vote, how long ago the question owner last viewed the question. If a question is salvageable, or somewhat borderline, seeing something like "Question owner last seen: 35 seconds ago" would probably be enough for me to stay my hand and return later.