My own view is introduced in the comments to these questions. I think that there are two tendencies at work:
Vilification of questions that obviously try to express a problem that is perfectly on topic, but lacking the expertise necessary to express it in a way that makes the core of the question immediatly apparent - the core already being there and understandable if the reading was benevolently (otherwise unclear what you're asking, of course).
Not having the expertise in a certain field to properly understand the problematic portion of the question or to conceive it as answerable, simply because the discourse (and terms) or authors that worked on this exact problem are simply not known.
Both are fatal for a welcoming atmosphere for newcomers on this site. I would assume that commenting, perhaps even in the form of curious asking instead of throwing in close votes as a first step, would be a stance more fitting for a philosophical community.
I do understand that there are borderline cases and it is not like I do not vote for close. There are questions I can simply not understand at all - even with the most benevolent reading - or that are simply too broad/opinion based. I just want to discuss the problem before it becomes manifest and know wether I am alone in perceiving these tendencies and their problematic implications.
Therefore the question stands as it is: Would it be better to show some amount of humbleness considering close votes?
Disclaimer: I certainly do not want to attack anyone personally here. I just take these two occurances as a cause to discuss a topic that is more a kind of raising feeling than anything else.
Edit Aug 21st:
This question here is a perfect example of what I mean. It definitely is perfectly on topic, as it is asking for philosophical definitions in a case where it is not trvial to find a philosophical one at all. Especially considering the constrains of the question. It is not like you could simply go to SEP or IEP or Wikipedia. And there is even a whole strain of philosophy, the Philosophic Anthropology, that works on these topics (there might be others and there certainly are authors I am not aware of).
Biologists work with some amount of abstraction, but the philosophical work allows levels of abstraction that even make (and actually have made) definitions of life possible that clearly transcend the narrow scope of biology, although, of course, based in insights of biology.
Nevertheless it has three close votes at this time, claiming it would not be answerable in the boundaries of philosophy. And I think that this could be some kind of automatism that looses the ability to consider the particular case: "Definition?, Oh, vote4close, not wanted here!". Well yes, in cases where there are articles throughout the internet easily available.