My primary issue with the specifically referenced question was lack of context. As @polygeo mentioned had they framed their question with my ancestor is mentioned or I am trying to determine how much land they actually purchased at said sale then it would have been relevant and on topic and in addition in our normal style we could have provided more than the basics they were looking for.
It did pass the very basic Wikipedia test of not having a specific entry for the terms and also there was no clear answer in the basic google search term query.
I have seen multiple examples on History.SE where if framed right "What does this mean?" answers have been asked and have been successful (i.e. "Half-Decked and Anointed by the Lord"). I have had those myself, though sometimes they also require refinement. I have seen others not such and they being very brutal in their responses and making derogatory statements. For example, Jan Murphy's response to the above mentioned question would have likely resulted in a negative score answer on History because it is not definitive, like when I asked this question there and one of the answers received a very negative lashing and I have even seen answers deleted because one of the moderators not feeling it was definitive enough. This forum allow more flexibility in definitiveness of answers partially due to the subject matter not always having an 'exact' answer but also due to us having more flexibility in the quality of questions.
That all said, micro-history shouldn't default to this forum if it can't pass the History.SE test either unless it can be put into context, which I think is a simple and very fair (and yet still VERY broad) scoping of this forum.
I really enjoy the Family History aspect of this forum and people's desire to flush our some of these things to learn about their ancestors.
I just think it needs to be put in context of family history and how it relates to it to be applicable and preserve the scope of the forum.
