The close votes for this reason haven't slowed down, despite this being rejected.
Despite Robert's answer about why there should be no such custom close reason, I keep seeing this comment entered over and over on questions along with close votes. So people are still hammering and treating this like an indisputable rule... they're just using the Off-Topic close reason instead of a custom one. I feel like this ignores the point of his answer.
Sometimes you don't know what to try
What is the best way to tumble-dry wet sneakers?
This thing has been closed, reopened, and is halfway to being closed again because there isn't a list of things that have been tried and failed. What, exactly, is the obvious answer to this problem that he should list trying before we allow it to be open? Because by default, it's "Toss them in there and hope for the best". Is that not good enough? If it is, do we really need him to say it? If it's not, how are we ranking what's a good enough try? If he says "I threw a blanket in there with them, but it was still loud" is this suddenly an on-topic question when before it wasn't? I would submit that anyone who answers "yes" to that is dooming this to be a very unfriendly place to new users, and that they should look at both versions of the question when deciding whether or not requiring that minor change actually made it any better.
What happens when people have the same question but tried different things?
By building this requirement to list what you tried into a question, we're unreasonably narrowing the scope of questions in some case. The top answer to the tumble-dry question is "wrap them in bath towels". Let's say I try that and it doesn't work at all for me. Should I post a whole new question, saying I tried that answer and that it didn't work for me, and thus I need a different hack? After all, my question is different, since I have a different set of things I tried and failed at. I would hope, however, we would still think of these questions as duplicates... just because one of the possible solutions didn't work for me shouldn't mean I ask a whole new question just to rule that solution out. This seems pretty obvious, but causes a problem when you flip it.
What happens when the potentially best answer didn't work for the original asker?
So let's say hypothetically that for 95% of people, doing this crazy thing works like a charm. People all over the internet are saying "Wow, great lifehack! That totally fixes this issue for me!" Except, then consider that maybe the very first person who came here to ask about it is in that 5% that it doesn't work for, and already knew that answer and tried it. Maybe their shoelaces are too short, or frayed, or they otherwise can't use that solution. So, right there in their question, they say they tried it, it didn't work for them, and it is ruled out as a possible answer. Now our site has a question about tumble-drying sneakers where a very good answer that would help a ton of people isn't allowed specifically because it was ruled out in the initial question as a possible answer. It goes back to the point above... do we now allow a duplicate version of the question, which is the same in all respects except for the "What have you tried that didn't work?" part, and splinter our answers between the two questions. I hope everyone thinks that's a bad idea.
We shouldn't require users to bake potential answers right into the question
And that's the problem. We're baking "failed" answers right into the question, which doesn't work well in the StackExchange model. It throws off the standard practice for how duplication works and also leads to a pretty unfriendly atmosphere where you come here looking to solve a problem and get smacked down for not listing the things you've tried.
This rule doesn't actually force questions to get any better
We're really just paying lip service to the perceived problem we're trying to avoid, which is avoiding people asking questions with obvious, common-sense answers. Take just about any answer to the tumble-dry sneakers question and I can post a version that says "Yeah, I tried that but didn't work for me". What, are you going to come to my house and check that I'm telling the truth? But I've now satisfied your "Tell me what you've tried" requirement, so you can no longer close me for that reason. You'll have to find a new one. It turns this into a pointless exercise where we're using close votes to get rid of bad, unresearched questions when we should be relying on the standard practice of downvoting bad questions. Remember, close votes should not be treated like super downvotes.
This policy doesn't seem to solve any problems
So, I've listed a bunch of problems I think this policy causes. What does it fix? Nothing that can't already be handled in the current system, in my opinion. I believe it is attempting to fix the following:
- Get rid of unresearched questions with common-sense answers. There's already a mechanism for discouraging bad questions on StackExchange: Downvoting.
- Clarify the question so that we better understand why they're having a problem in the first place. There is already a close reason for this: Unclear what you're asking.
- Narrow the scope of the site so that only questions with "hacky" answers appear: I don't think it manages to solve this, and I detest the idea that an answer to a question determines whether the question was on-topic in the first place. And our inability to really get past this, despite this recent effort, might be the most damning evidence that this site won't work.