I recently asked this question:
I neglected to include my research effort evidence originally, however after being questioned, I first added research evidence via comments, then updated the original question body. Even after all this, and long after accepting an answer, I am receiving downvotes with no explanations.
I am especially confused because a very similar question has been positively received:
I assume the bulk of the downvoting of the question over on main is due to you asking for a list of lenses (and reiterating in the comments that you wanted a list).
By-and-large, list-type questions are not a good fit for Stack Exchange sites (for example: List questions: Community Wiki? on Meta.SE). So while initial objections in the comments to your question were mostly about the apparent "lack of research", fundamentally, a question asking for a list of lenses that can mostly be compiled yourself still sort of comes across as "please do the work for me; I cannot be bothered / I am unable / I am willing to do it myself".
On the issue of the large number of downvotes, unfortunately there is often some initial inertia to the voting of questions, that very rarely gets turned around 180°. Usually, if a question initially gets a large number of downvotes, it's probably best to delete it, and ask in Meta or in chat how the question can be reworked to be a good question. I know, that sucks, but this is the reality we have to work within. :\
The downvote for this Meta seems like someone's trollin' a bit. But, to your other question, I think the negative reception is in the way your question comes off.
In the linked Q, there is an admission of being a beginner and a plea for help - to which people will be sympathetic.
Your question begins with a shopping list of features and doesn't list a single lens that you have already found and are questioning. The feeling I get from the Q is that you are entitled to help from the community.
I'm fairly certain that's not what you meant - but that's what makes it easy to write the question off as an ill-researched, off-topic shopping question.
Things would have probably gone very differently had you said:
So, I'm very new to photography and am trying to find a single lens to cover a huge range because (insert reasons). Ideally, it'd be 24-200mm, full frame, and have some VR because, well, I'm just not as strong as I used to be. The only thing I've found is the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 - but it's not for full frame! Am I just completely out of luck in this request?
That's how I see it anyway. Part of the question, too, is the fact that you're essentially asking, "Which breed of horse should I use to go from New York to Boston," - to which the answer is, "None. Get a car."
Just about anyone who knows anything about lenses will tell you the range you're looking for comes with a lot of trade-offs and is, in most cases, a bad idea. Your reasons for the request indicate whether or not you've even thought that through. Since you gave no reasons in your post, we can only assume you haven't researched/thought it through - and that goes back to the "no research effort" critique.
You just have to humanize your question a bit, at least, from my perspective.
I didn't downvote, but it seems to me the biggest issue with your question was that it came off mainly as a request for a product recommendation, which is expressly off-topic at all Stack Exchange communities.
There were also additional details revealed in comments, both to the question and to some of the answers, that you never bothered to edit into the original question. Since comments at SE are transitory and can be deleted by a moderator at any time, anything that needs to be permanent needs to be included in a question (or answer).
A list of lenses that match a given criteria is even harder for Stack Exchange to deal with than a single shopping question. In the extremely unlikely chance you get a comprehensive list, what happens when a month later, one of those lenses is no longer made, or a new lens enters the market? There's no real incentive to do the thankless chore of updating and maintaining that list. So, it just sits there, increasing the amount of outdated information on the Internet and decreasing the value of the site.
There's another thing too — you wonder in a comment to another meta answer why vaguely-titled, open-ended, and highly subjective What kind of Compositional Elements are used in this pic? got a positive response, when your question didn't. That's easy, and actually a good insight because there is a connection:
Many of us really enjoy talking about photography — the art and science of taking pictures. This is frequently drowned out on the internet in general (and on this site in particular) by people asking, basically, which camera to buy or which lens to buy, over and over and over. So — for better or worse — over time, we've developed a tendency to be more forgiving with the photo questions and much less forgiving with gear questions, especially ones of the form of "find me a list of all matches for this criteria" or "what is best for me?".
Add me to the "I didn't downvote, but...." list of responders here. It's awesome that you took the time to make a meta post about this. I do encourage you to stick around and especially to ask any questions about making photographs which you may have. It's not that all gear questions are off-topic, but imagine if Stack Exchange were primarily "Which languages use list comprehension?" and "what library should I use"?
