It looked specific to me.
are there any legitimate peer reviewed materials that are really proven to hasten and promote healing?
People chose not to answer the specific question. Then it became a free-for-all. There was no moderation, despite my flagging it.
I like many others first came here for FQ. I can get opinions anyplace.
To be fair, it isn’t always a problem. It’s just that FQ seems to be drifting into IMHO territory, to the detriment of the board.
Not a Pit moderator, nor a FQ moderator. But if there’s this much concern about drift in FQ (to be fair, almost all of it our [ read us as posters ] fault), maybe we should create a thread in ATMB to talk about best practices? A lot of people choose to never read the Pit, and so bring it to the community to improve our overall performance. And of course, don’t name names there, that’s more proper Pit territory.
Though this is speaking as someone who rarely posts in FQ, because 99% of the time, someone smarter, or with more professional experience, or superior Google-Fu has provided a better answer than I could ever have. 
I almost started a thread there, but I was on my cell phone, and didn’t want to start a thread without hunting down examples of problem threads first. I agree that’s probably a better place for this.
The ‘corporate jargon’ thread is a prime example of this. 90% of the responses were IMHO material, including the AI generated jargon.
It’s unclear to me there were any realistic FQ answers to that multi-part rant thinly disguised as a question.
Bad question → bad answers. Nearly every time.
That’s a tough one. In this case I kind of agree with @LSLGuy. I hadn’t even looked at the thread, assuming it was another “worst corporate jargon” threads and not FQ. Reading the OP, I get he’s asking when did it begin, but it’s doubtful there’s an actual date, and a poster early on described how it’s been a thing for at least a hundred years. It does sound a bit like a rhetorical question, perhaps.
And let’s not forget another resource, ChatGPT. I know that GPT has its detractors here, and it’s far from perfect, but it has genuine utility, especially with the latest refinements. It can be very effective at answering questions that Wiki doesn’t address, perhaps because the answer is obvious to an expert, or because it touches on some obscure subtlety. My response to the naysayers is that in my experience, GPT has been accurate far more often than not, and genuinely helpful. It’s just important to keep in mind that it’s not always right.
Once a question has been answered, I would consider a reasonable amount of drift on related subjects to be a feature, not a bug, exploiting the interactive nature of a discussion board like this, something distinctly lacking in static media like a Wiki or a book. Provided of course that it doesn’t interfere with the OP’s question being answered.
That’s exactly how the FQ sticky reads. The problem is when people jump the gun. Once people read one anecdote written too early, they jump in with their own.
Most FQ threads are asking for advice. But they want “fact-based” opinions so they got to FQ. Even though opinions are clearly IMHO territory (it’s right in the name).
(Okay, probably not most but far too many. Any number greater than 0 seems like too many.)
If someone wants an example, try the thread titled, “I don’t want wires running from my dash cam to my adapter”. Clearly asking for advice about the best way to set up something in a car. Not a question looking for a factual answer. These are not rare.
I’m not seeing it. Out of the first 20 or 30 threads, I see maybe 2 that might be misplaced. Although I suspect the OPs might disagree.
Other examples:
Give me ideas to block a light on my TV.
The “should I worry about Melamine” thread is borderline, because there’s kind of an FQ question about it getting into groundwater. Otherwise it’s asking for opinions.
I can’t tell if there is a FQ in the “sir yes sir” thread.
The thread about importing Excel into SQL is seeking advice, there’s no FQ in that one.
It’s currently not as bad as I’ve seen it in the past but there are more than a couple threads that don’t seem to have factual questions in them among recent threads.
Sometimes they do get moved, so you aren’t seeing all the inappropriate stuff that starts its life there. For example, the “Looking for a Dream Job” thread was posted in FQ. I reported it (maybe others did too, I don’t know) and it was moved.
Huh. I thought he wanted actual ways to block the light but not block the signal, not advice on whether it was a good idea. He got some pretty precise instructions how to do it. I can see it your way, too, though.
“Actual ways to block the light” isn’t a factual question. It’s seeking technical advice, which is explicitly what IMHO is for.
If you are looking for advice on something, that’s not what FQ is for.
Kinda seems like opinions of what is or what isn’t factual questions means different things to different folks.
Hmmm 
The general rule of thumb is that advice belongs in IMHO, and generic questions about the world might be suitable for FQ, is they have a factual answer.
If you read the “TV LED” thread, people give suggestions, the OP tries them, reports that it kind of worked but not quite, and then people make other suggestions. All based on trying to get the OP’s TV to behave in a way they like.
“It blocked some of the light, but it still leaks out.”
“Then did you try…”
That doesn’t seem like how FQ is supposed to work in any way.
A good FQ has a single uncontroversial answer. Period.
It may be very obscure, but it’s uncontroversial to the people who know enough to provide it. And it’s those folks’ jobs to explain it at an appropriate level for the questioner, and the rest of us, to understand it.
All else is IMHO 
an IMHO topic.
This is a good FQ:
And this is a terrible FQ:
Right now of the last week’s worth of FQ’s, I’d move over half of them to IMHO if I was a Mod. Not based on how the thread developed, but based entirely on the OP.
Sure looks like a factual question to me.