I ask this question because, in my opinion, it is painfully telling (of what, I’m not sure, hence the question) about many of this site’s visitors and at least one of its registered voters when an insightful and thought-provoking question asking about “Stagnation de la langue après une évolution technique” gets fewer than 200 views (actually only 159 as of now) and gets unilaterally “close-voted” to boot (if you can call one vote “getting voted [on]”) for being “too broad,” whereas a question asking about “French equivalents of 'cost an arm and a leg'” gets more than 2K views (2,174 and counting) and not even that same lone vote to close.
Granted, the latter, “arm/leg,” question technically only asked “Are there more [examples]?” (requiring a simple, non-broad, yes/no answer) without expressly requesting to see other examples (although I imagine the many examples provided so far were welcome, if not expected, by its author), whereas the former, “stagnation,” question did go beyond simply asking, yes or no, if there were other examples by daring to come right out and express its author’s curiosity/desire to actually know what some of them were.
(However, I seriously doubt if simply editing the last paragraph of the former question to match the latter’s, yes/no “Are there more?” type of query would get it reopened, but maybe it’s worth a try.)
My only hesitation in writing/asking this stemmed from my fear that it would result in getting the latter question closed (which is not my intention, btw) for it has been my general experience in life that when people are called out for engaging in the seemingly inconsistent treatment of two parties, the initial reaction of many of them is to erase the consistency, not by kindly rethinking their most recent, adverse treatment of the latest party, but by harshly and retroactively reversing their inconsistent favorable treatment of the earlier party.
However, in some cases involving inconsistent/selective enforcement of rules, among which I am personally tempted to include this one, where such a reaction could easily be seen as a blatant attempt to cover something up (possibly the favorable treatment of questions with high view counts? Again, hence my question.), I can’t imagine that anyone (except perhaps D. Trump), from fear of perhaps calling attention to all the reasons behind the inconsistent treatment, would give more than fleeting consideration to such a course of action, which leads me now to fear less that the latter question will be unilaterally closed.
If, however, I’m wrong and it is closed, unilaterally or otherwise, I sincerely apologize, in advance, to its author for that sad and unintended outcome.