This site suffers from overzealous community reviewers and trigger happy close voters. This can be exemplified with one of my recent posts:
Of course it might probably be argued that there might be certain problems with that post. One problem may be that this is a topic that violates religious convictions and is taboo for discussion? Perhaps there are even objective reasons to evaluate the question as "bad"?
But if those problems are there, why are there no comments suggesting improvements?
The only (indirect) comment from the close voters, except my note of protest, is the reason given in the post notice that it was
put on hold as "too broad"
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.
This question is not "too broad". Without a further commentary – especially from the close voters – on how to limit the question: how could this even be narrowed down further?
As I already wrote in a comment on main:
This question is judged as off-topic because 4 other members do not want to improve this question and comment in that direction but they just want to kill it.
No comments suggesting improvements, just the naked close hammer is not "be nice".
And those four members did that voting uniformly and not constructively and that was plain wrong on top.
Four community reviews in such a quick succession, all with the same wrong reason and without constructive comments leave me no other choice as to conclude that this is an example of robo-reviewing (bandwagon lazyness?).
My reasoning for sorting the initial question into the "valid" box:
It is about Apple hardware, asks for a very concrete problem that should be answered with objective data, explicitly steers systematically away from "primarily opinion based", it is not "recommendation" (to the contrary: it's intended as a fishing lesson to avoid that as well) and does not ask "why" but "how" (as in 'how to get a realistic picture of reliability').
It is narrowed down to just one type of hardware from a limited time-frame with a very limited set of possible machine types to consider (SandyBridge, Retina, Touchbar the main differentiators); so it is basically just one data-set for a small range of machines that are seen by consumers and marketed by Apple as essentially the same across all those years and models.
The comments that are below the question already indicate that it can be answered, even if perhaps not with the kind of data I originally envisioned (as is common for answers: "do not do that, try this instead").
I fully expect the possibility that it might still be seen by some as "a bad fit for the site"; or as I like to phrase it "just unwanted".
But now a comment and an answer to this question suggest that "too broad" would not be the reason those two posters would have chosen. This just enforces my impression that all closers ticking just one "too broad" box is indicative of a problem, a problem perhaps with the initial question, but very well maybe even with the review process as it unfolded here. 4 quick votes just choosing the same checkbox indicates either a clear problem that fits that box, or if does not fit that box, like it does not do here, something else.
Without direct feedback from the closevoters or access to the data "time spent to read and review and vote" this will remain guesswork?
It seems to me that this exchange needs more of this: What are review tests (audits) and how do they work?