#The system doesn't work.

The system doesn't work.

Isn't that simple? There are literally thousands of questions like this ("I wrote only one column in SQL field list, why doesn't it return all other fields?!") or this (A silliest typo) one, which gets happily answered and accepted. This makes Stack Overflow different from other StackExchange network sites. This makes questions fall so fast that the OP doesn't have a chance to meet a professional.

Isn't that simple? There are literally thousands of questions like this ("I wrote only one column in SQL field list, why doesn't it return all other fields?!") or this (A silliest typo) one, which gets happily answered and accepted. This makes Stack Overflow different from other StackExchange network sites. This makes questions fall so fast that the OP doesn't have a chance to meet a professional.

Moreover, the overall quality of answers is pro rata to the number of questions as well. There are hundreds of weird answers nobody cares about, and for the very same reason, no professional comes across them to verify. Even more: having their time spent on silly questions, the professionals don't have time to write a good answer.
  (The overall answer quality is another matter. I won't stop on it but it's indeed weird: if you spot a grammar mistake, you get +2 points. If you spot a logical nonsense, you get -1).

The current closure system doesn't work. And it is not the limited number of votes. It is the reputation system that encourages people to answer instead of vote. Of course, flagging also works in your imagination, but in reality it doesn't. Besides that, every time you mention silly questions, you get the usual meta-nursing: "these poor babies in the woods deserve an answer too! Don't you have a heart?", which makes every proposal just sink in a quicksand of coddling.
  After all, even closed, the question still hangs around, polluting the site. This is the problem.

The goal: to limit the number of [visible] questions to a sane amount.
  The solution: There ought to be some sort of ghetto for all the too-localized questions. IF they generate so much precious traffic, if all these poor unsuspecting fellows require your nursing - all right, let them in. But - for the sake of all that's good - somewhere else!

The closure system worked when
  trees were green and traffic low.
  But times, they are change-in'
  a-changin', you know.

Moreover, the overall quality of answers is pro rata to the number of questions as well. There are hundreds of weird answers nobody cares about, and for the very same reason, no professional comes across them to verify. Even more: having their time spent on silly questions, the professionals don't have time to write a good answer. 
(The overall answer quality is another matter. I won't stop on it but it's indeed weird: if you spot a grammar mistake, you get +2 points. If you spot a logical nonsense, you get -1).

The current closure system doesn't work. And it is not the limited number of votes. It is the reputation system that encourages people to answer instead of vote. Of course, flagging also works in your imagination, but in reality it doesn't. Besides that, every time you mention silly questions, you get the usual meta-nursing: "these poor babies in the woods deserve an answer too! Don't you have a heart?", which makes every proposal just sink in a quicksand of coddling. 
After all, even closed, the question still hangs around, polluting the site. This is the problem.

The goal: to limit the number of [visible] questions to a sane amount. 
The solution: There ought to be some sort of ghetto for all the too-localized questions. IF they generate so much precious traffic, if all these poor unsuspecting fellows require your nursing - all right, let them in. But - for the sake of all that's good - somewhere else!

The closure system worked when 
trees were green and traffic low. 
But times, they are change-in' 
a-changin', you know.