This is a big can of worms actually (sometimes, based on observations I even think there is sabotage going on on wb, not with the proposal, but with other things)
Plenty of good points in @elementilas post, and in an ideal situation why not, but wb isn't in an ideal situation.
First of all, I do agree that every q will contain some room for opinions, it by nature of topics, of what subjects are asked, so as fundamentally it is so because how does one asks what one does not know - so splitting hairs on that, forcing OP's in 69 figure is not necessarily useful, and such situations have to be handled on the side of those who answer q's. So as it may be some food for newbies as well, they learn, shape their mindset, get some rep, so occasionally - why not.
Be too strict also may be against the goal - helping authors to make better works, better in a sense of science and such from tour page. Better in objective frameworks, not in creative writing.
Be extreme about answers is also not the best, as a good answer is one which is helpful and at least points in some useful direction, also per some guidance page.
So being anal (sorry but it is the only english word I know which fits the description, plz someone help me to change it in a british humor sentence) about deviations isn't good or helpful for many - those who answer and those who ask.
All that to say - I do not support extremes, I do not do extremes, and I do not advocate for it. And it for to point out that what I say next may sound as if I do(or if it sounds that way), but I do not and I do advocate for moderate approaches. (Extreme in a mathematical sense, just in case if it has some weird connotation in english, you'll never know those days, longing for times when dead Latin was as lingua franca, there was some convenience in languages which do not evolve, lol)
Atm we place too much pressure on those who ask questions, and not enough of it on those who answer q's.
Many questions can be classified as containing some percentage of objective content, which can be addressed using knowledge of real things, and opinion part which also can be distinguished as expert(knowledge) opinion and fantasy opinion.
- so a random q can have 2 or 3 scores given. For people who do not have expert knowledge for given q it may look like one or two scores - (opinion, [objective, [expert opinion]])
Just detecting an opinion part in a question is not sufficient to close the q, and I would argue(in an ideal world maybe) even 100% opinion q is not necessarily worthy of closure if op is willing and capable to work on it and improve it. There is long reasoning behind it(flaws of tech used to close and open q's on se, which does not work well on wb), but one relevant to the discussion - instead of making a bunch of low-quality q's OP may focus efforts on making that first q better, learn in the process what wb is about, make a good example, etc.
- sandbox on meta - it does not work for most people, really - it is reality, and if someone didn't recognize it it's time, really. Things have to happen in situ. in that sense proudness of blitz closing q's which was a thing for quite a long time - u kidding me, really?
So just detecting the opinion part in q is not sufficient to close it, and here I support L. Dutch's stance, once expressed in comments - we may or should then address a more objective part of such q. That actually a good position, and it is up to us - those who answer and vote close or open to stick to it. Detect our shortcomings, detect limits of our expertise, stick to a more proper way to write answers.
Some people, sometimes - do not even bother to address the q, jumping straight to alternative solution/vision, etc. If one's knowledge says to him the q has problems and one wishes to write alternative solution - sure, it may go well in-line with helping people make better works, but please spend some of your time to describe which and why there are problems. Or maybe spend some time in comments clarifying things.
- we use the comment section well enough, but some could use it too. And some who stealthy remove comments do it less, I see that chat removal cases are lesser in numbers, that is a good thing. The comment section is a workplace for those who answer the q or consider it, and it requires as much as it requires.
So considering that, we already have everything for list asking, and it already happens. Again it is due to the nature of the matter, most of the time we do not handle q's which are so narrow for them to have one solution or few alternatives. And another thing is q's aren't like one can test them, it not like 'How do you change bash prompt' - where one plugs(danger, do not remove your /, lol) a solution in CLI and it works or it does not.
What needs is to work out some more or less coherent judgment, with which it was always a problem. Exchanging points in comments, specific to the question, is a good attempt to do so.
In that sense VTC VTO comments - I find it to be a very good thing.
- this is a good thing you do, and more people should do it. it allows us to build some shared views or discuss them on meta to agree to disagree or agree on something different or just correct our stances in a reasonable manner - or nothing, as an attempt it all fine. So such comments are very useful, as it allows us to change in some organized way.
in that sense, we have everything it takes to ask lists, and it happens regularly, providing them.
A question how my alien makes a perfectly round ball out of clay, for to repair its space ship on a planet which is almost a carbon copy of earth and does that from scratch - does not differ that much from a q - how to make a ball out of clay, of how to do the same + some restrictions like tools skills time place whatever.
indeed some times there is a necessity to ask things that one does not know, and it may have a finite or infinite list of answers.
And even if the list isn't expressed in one answer, it is expressed by the set of the answers, and rightly so - there is more than one way to make a ball.
- in that sense insisting, for q closure purposes that a q should have strict criteria for the best answer, this test alone is not sufficient for closure.
- when op accepts an answer - it is nothing more than ops gratitude and a sign that wb was helpful for him - it does not mean he did verify an answer and it worked for him and it is a correct one. The rest answers can be correct and good as well.
Litmus test could be - does answering the q in the way may make better work in sense of science and such. if a list does that - it is a list, if opinion it is an opinion, etc.
Since L. Dutch stopped singlehandedly close questions, respect for that is not easy to change oneself, then it up to the community(mostly) to influence and shape the flow of q's and a's.
And for that:
- we share vtc's vto's to sync clocks
- explain and clarify q's with ops - teaching, explaining, encouraging to work on their q's, not just hack them with closure
- give them some slack, it is not necessarily easy to ask a good question plenty of examples of all kinds - and try our best judgment in writing an answer, which in some way refffers to a perfect question in our mind.
- more often do and demand doing preliminary work and discourage those who jump with answers for the shake of rep if there are some significant problems with q's and a's (but do not forget essence core of the q, reasonable)
- do downvote(maybe, if there is a reason) those answers which do jump in just for rep.
- skip more often in the rev queue - if the topic is not one we are closely familiar with. observing myself I noticed a difference in judgments when in judgment in a queue or when I read and think on a question that drew my attention from the main. Time invested is different, so predictably there is a difference in the quality of judgment.
- more fuzzy logic in the process - it is a thing, and it happens anyway, so again - splitting hair over a word is not useful for anyone. we have to train to be able to grasp the intention of a q, its essence for it to be ours guidance in follow-up actions.
- more understanding that other se's practices maybe not be directly applicable to wb content. Authors so as we have practical problems and solutions and we have to use what we have - no one will change things just for our necessities - imperfect world and we have to use imperfect tools. But there is a guiding star - help authors to make better work.
- do no forget it for authors - I may expect some maturity from people, but I do not expect them to prove that and I am not interested in such proofs. even if it is a schoolboy with an intention to tell a story to his girl, or a lonely guy making his own fantasy - for all intended purposes they are equal to me - questions are legit as they may(0.001%) be useful for others as something - ideas inspirations. But on the other hand quality of q's do matter as well. Sorry for the language, but my own preferences, I would rather read a long good one, than a short and shitty one.
- helping authors to make better works
it is a guiding star, and I personally think it is an important and good mission. (on a level like - saving humanity - lol)
But helping ones to do so, we help consumers to get used to higher quality, which will force more people to try to produce better ones, more q's for us - profit.
Not only that, understanding or accepting or adapting that helps to resolve many discussions which happen on meta since inception and since we left beta - opinions, on topic, belongs to other se's - it helps to take decision and judgment in all those cases for many q's.
And in that sense list q's aren't an exception.