The answer and the current policy confirmed by Spencer G fails to address the actual close reason. Any question, no matter how detailed, maybe construed as "lacking details or clarity".

It's important to note there is no close reason for "lack of research" and questions closed for "lack of research" is closed using the reason: "Needs details or clarity" as proxy:

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.

Add details and clarify the problem being solved. This will help others answer the question. You can edit the question.

At it's core, it is the work ratio, that most users are concerned about:

Work done by asker : Work needed to be done by answerer

You can call it lack of research, lack of detail/clarity or whatever, but you are essentially saying Work/effort done by asker is not enough compared to the work needed to be done by answerers. The work done by asker maybe

• by researching the question - like providing searched links,
• by making the question more clearer/detailed - like providing a copyable text table of Google sheets questions instead of just describing what's in each columns in paragraphs of text or providing a image
• by attempts at solving the questions - like writing the code

This directly reduces the work needed by the answerer(s)

• research: easy links to documentation or other resources for quick review
• clarity/detail: effort needed to comprehend is greatly reduced as well as the effort needed to reproduce. If I can understand a question within 2 minutes, compared to say 5 minutes, that's 3 minutes of saved time. Copy pasting tables is easy compared to transcribing an image or deciphering the text data
• attempts at solving the question helps to see exact pain points. I don't have to write the entire solution afresh, but just address specific issues.

There's also a human pride factor at play here: No one wants to work for someone else for free. The effort put forth by the asker is not only indirectly proportional to the work needed to be done by answerers, but also directly proportional to the respect they show the existing community or the answerers. That respect is a crucial factor. It's what makes this site run - and it translates to reputation. That is also what creates high quality repository of questions and answers.

If the work ratio is high, I'm inclined to react positively. If the work ratio is less, I'm inclined react adversely by close votes/downvotes. Coming back to the closure reason, What is clear to me may not be clear to someone else. What is less detailed to me maybe more detailed to someone else. What requires 10 minutes for me to understand may take 20 minutes for others and some may never understand. What is more work for me would be easy/less work for someone else.

Here's where consensus play an important role. If at least three users believe the question needs more detail/clarity, then we have consensus that the question lacks clarity. But if those with unilateral close privileges believe the question needs more clarity/details, they can close it without the need for consensus. Now, this creates a problem where those with a different view don't have the said privilege. What if an average question requires 2 minutes to comprehend, but a user with privileges considers any question requiring more than a minute is too much work? What happens, if a user with privileges finds hard to comprehend everything than the average user? This is why those with privileges should act sparingly and not act proactively. This won't be a problem, if there are many others with the same privilege actively participating, as there would be balance.

The answer and the current policy confirmed by Spencer G fails to address the actual close reason. Any question, no matter how detailed, maybe construed as "lacking details or clarity".

It's important to note there is no close reason for "lack of research" and questions closed for "lack of research" is closed using the reason: "Needs details or clarity" as proxy:

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.

Add details and clarify the problem being solved. This will help others answer the question. You can edit the question.

At its core, it is the work ratio, that most users are concerned about:

Work done by asker : Work needed to be done by answerer

You can call it lack of research, lack of detail/clarity or whatever, but you are essentially saying Work/effort done by asker is not enough compared to the work needed to be done by answerers. The work done by asker may be:

• by researching the question - like providing searched links,
• by making the question more clearer/detailed - like providing a copyable text table of Google sheets questions instead of just describing what's in each columns in paragraphs of text or providing a image
• by attempts at solving the questions - like writing the code

This directly reduces the work needed by the answerer(s)

• research: easy links to documentation or other resources for quick review
• clarity/detail: effort needed to comprehend is greatly reduced as well as the effort needed to reproduce. If I can understand a question within 2 minutes, compared to say 5 minutes, that's 3 minutes of saved time. Copy pasting tables is easy compared to transcribing an image or deciphering the text data
• attempts at solving the question helps to see exact pain points. I don't have to write the entire solution afresh, but just address specific issues.

There's also a human pride factor at play here: No one wants to work for someone else for free. The effort put forth by the asker is not only indirectly proportional to the work needed to be done by answerers, but also directly proportional to the respect they show the existing community or the answerers. That respect is a crucial factor. It's what makes this site run - and it translates to reputation. That is also what creates high quality repository of questions and answers.

If the work ratio is high, I'm inclined to react positively. If the work ratio is less, I'm inclined react adversely by close votes/downvotes. Coming back to the closure reason, What is clear to me may not be clear to someone else. What is less detailed to me maybe more detailed to someone else. What requires 10 minutes for me to understand may take 20 minutes for others and some may never understand. What is more work for me would be easy/less work for someone else.

Here's where consensus play an important role. If at least three users believe the question needs more detail/clarity, then we have consensus that the question lacks clarity. But if those with unilateral close privileges believe the question needs more clarity/details, they can close it without the need for consensus. Now, this creates a problem where those with a different view don't have the said privilege. What if an average question requires 2 minutes to comprehend, but a user with privileges considers any question requiring more than a minute is too much work? What happens, if a user with privileges finds hard to comprehend everything than the average user? This is why those with privileges should act sparingly and not act proactively. This won't be a problem, if there are many others with the same privilege actively participating, as there would be balance.