Here's an example of a not-so-good question: Domain and sub domain in different hosting providers
It's about system management, so it doesn't belong on Stack Overflow. Googling for the question title brings up a bunch of responses, and the top response is a tutorial from the AWS side, so clearly the OP (who has been on Stack Overflow for 4+ years) hasn't indicated that any research. On the other hand, it is clearly written and is answerable by a person who knows the GoDaddy side.
As of this morning it's been viewed 13 times, downvoted twice, and has no close votes or explanatory comments. This doesn't seem very useful: it doesn't help the OP in any way, and doesn't leave a good question to help the next user.
If close votes are to be useful, it seems that they must be less "expensive" in relationship to downvotes. One approach would be to dramatically lower the number of rep points required: from 3,000 to, say, 500. That would still limit close votes to people who had been on the site long enough to have a vested interest.
Another possibility is that when a user of sufficient rep clicks the downvote button, s/he is asked if a close vote would be more appropriate.
Or, as a completely different alternative, accept that closed questions aren't adding anything to the site and eliminate closure altogether.
Before asking this question I tried this and this. The closest I found to a duplicate was More effective closing / downvoting of junk questions to help with the signal-noise ratio?.