user5198: I have only really been active here for about 3 months, so I’m not very familiar with this site’s policies and ambitions. On some sites I participate in, there is a vision that seems to be shared, reflected partly by the comments certain kinds of questions get, by how quickly they're put on hold, etc. I don't have a good sense of what the vision of this site is.
Sometimes I see questions that are of poor quality, probably because of a lack of understanding of science in general or biology in particular, as with this question and this one. Sometimes it’s both, or there is some other reason to object to the question. For example, incomprehensibility. Sometimes a question concerns me because I know the OP can answer it himself with a bit more thought, or because an OP posts a flurry of similar questions about slightly different drugs that have the same or similar mechanisms of action. I see some good questions closed, and I don't understand the reason. Sometimes, I see comments that lead me to wonder what is expected in the level of expertise of users here. (I think there is more expertise here than is sometimes recognized.)
What is the vision this site has for itself?
I'm clearly missing something here.

user3624: First meant as a comment to the answer by @MadScientist, but became to long

I generally agree with the answer by @MadScientist and the comment by @WYSIWYG; my vision would be that the site is aimed for undergraduate students and up, or people who can frame their questions at the same level from their own studies. I wouldn't like the site to devolve into basic trivia, similarly to Quora. We could of course allow some of those questions, if they show a basic understanding of related topics and some background research, but they should be the exception, not the rule. At SE-Academia there are pretty strict guidelines that questions should deal with upper level academic issues (graduate students and up), and questions on e.g. general study techniques, non-academic careers or undergradute issues are off-topic. Over time, I would like to see something similar here, so that questions at the level of what you can pick up in a highschool textbook on biology or a glance at Wikipedia should be off-topic.
I can also sympathise with this and some other answers to a similar question from the private beta of BioSE.

user5144: I think the general aim of answering bio-related questions is pretty clear. The field is rather big with a lot of specialities - so a lot of questions will not be answered, especially when they come from a highly specialized field. For example we get quite some questions about deveopmental biology with only very few developmental biologists around.
Then there are quite a lot of questions which clearly lack at least a bit of research - some due to not doing anything, some due to a lack of background (sometimes even Wikipedia is hard to understand without basic knowledge). But I agree, there could be more effort put into this.
Some questions get closed which not necessarily have to (I have voted to reopen your example) because they can get a bit of editing to remove the "personal medical information" part and then answer them. For me it is perfectly ok to answer such questions to fight urban legends or esoteric claims. I oppose answering questions about serious personal medication or health questions. 
Summarising this, I think we should probably be a bit slower in closing fresh questions and on the other hand ask the posters to either remove content, clarify the questions or to show some effort in basic research. If they do not respond, we can still close this questions rather fast. But I think they should get a few hours to respond to critics. And we have to make sure that they get the critics - otherwise they will turn away and are lost as active members (at least some of them).
Additionally I think we should go through old, unsanswered questions, which will not be answerable because of missing input and so on and close these.

user6: The audience I wanted this site to have when I committed to the A51 proposal was undegraduates, PhD students and PostDocs in biological sciences. I'm obviously biased as I'm part of that group, but even then I think that this group should be our core audience. They have the knowledge we need, and also have still enough questions to ask. I'm generally skeptical of targeting a site too high, most professors are extremely busy and it would be exceedingly difficult to get them onto a site like this to answer questions (unless we would achieve the kind of professional standing a site like Math Overflow has). PhD students and PostDocs are the users that in my opinion could benefit the most from this site, and at the same time have the knowledge necessary to provide great answers, and more likely also the necessary time and inclination.
This site was targeted towards all users in the A51 proposal. So of course we received a large amount of questions from users that are not professionals. I did ask about this on meta early in our beta phase, but there was no real conclusion to that. 
While I'd personally like to lift the minimum entry barrier a bit, I'm also hesitant to actually propose this as I fear that this could get out of hand quickly. If there are no clear lines, this kind of decision gets rather arbitrary, and we end up with a pretty hostile site. 
I think that this is one of the topics we have to seriously discuss at some point, but I doubt there is an easy answer. 

5198: <p>I have only really been active here for about 3 months, so I’m not very familiar with this site’s policies and ambitions. On some sites I participate in, there is a vision that seems to be shared, reflected partly by the comments certain kinds of questions get, by how quickly they're put on hold, etc. I don't have a good sense of what the vision of this site is.</p>

<p>Sometimes I see questions that are of poor quality, probably because of a lack of understanding of science in general or biology in particular, as with <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24657/action-driver-of-just-born-kid">this question</a> and <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24633/can-a-rotten-egg-actually-hatches-to-a-real-life">this one</a>. Sometimes it’s both, or there is some other reason to object to the question. For example, <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24099/human-longevity-interventions-ranked-by-effectiveness/24100#comment38359_24100">incomprehensibility</a>. Sometimes a <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24257/how-can-succinylcholine-cause-myorelaxation">question</a> concerns me because I know the OP can answer it himself with a bit more thought, or because an OP posts a flurry of similar questions about slightly different drugs that have the same or similar mechanisms of action. I see some good questions <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24721/health-benefits-of-drinking-green-tea">closed</a>, and I don't understand the reason. Sometimes, I see comments that lead me to wonder what is expected in the level of <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24543/are-ipratropium-and-tolterodine-parasympatholytic#comment39384_24543"><em>expertise</em></a> of users here. (I think there is more expertise here than is sometimes recognized.)</p>

<p>What is the vision this site has for itself?</p>

<p>I'm clearly missing something here.</p>
 3624: <p><em>First meant as a comment to the answer by @MadScientist, but became to long</em></p>

<hr>

<p>I generally agree with the answer by @MadScientist and the comment by @WYSIWYG; my vision would be that the site is aimed for undergraduate students and up, or people who can frame their questions at the same level from their own studies. I wouldn't like the site to devolve into basic trivia, similarly to Quora. We could of course allow some of those questions, if they show a basic understanding of related topics and some background research, but they should be the exception, not the rule. At SE-Academia there are pretty strict guidelines that questions should deal with upper level academic issues (graduate students and up), and questions on e.g. general study techniques, non-academic careers or undergradute issues are off-topic. Over time, I would like to see something similar here, so that questions at the level of what you can pick up in a highschool textbook on biology or a glance at Wikipedia should be off-topic.</p>

<p>I can also sympathise with <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/18/3624">this</a> and some other answers to a similar question from the private beta of BioSE.</p>
 5144: <p>I think the general aim of answering bio-related questions is pretty clear. The field is rather big with a lot of specialities - so a lot of questions will not be answered, especially when they come from a highly specialized field. For example we get quite some questions about deveopmental biology with only very few developmental biologists around.</p>

<p>Then there are quite a lot of questions which clearly lack at least a bit of research - some due to not doing anything, some due to a lack of background (sometimes even Wikipedia is hard to understand without basic knowledge). But I agree, there could be more effort put into this.</p>

<p>Some questions get closed which not necessarily have to (I have voted to reopen your example) because they can get a bit of editing to remove the "personal medical information" part and then answer them. For me it is perfectly ok to answer such questions to fight urban legends or esoteric claims. I oppose answering questions about serious personal medication or health questions. </p>

<p>Summarising this, I think we should probably be a bit slower in closing fresh questions and on the other hand ask the posters to either remove content, clarify the questions or to show some effort in basic research. If they do not respond, we can still close this questions rather fast. But I think they should get a few hours to respond to critics. And we have to make sure that they get the critics - otherwise they will turn away and are lost as active members (at least some of them).</p>

<p>Additionally I think we should go through old, unsanswered questions, which will not be answerable because of missing input and so on and close these.</p>
 6: <p>The audience I wanted this site to have when I committed to the A51 proposal was undegraduates, PhD students and PostDocs in biological sciences. I'm obviously biased as I'm part of that group, but even then I think that this group should be our core audience. They have the knowledge we need, and also have still enough questions to ask. I'm generally skeptical of targeting a site too high, most professors are extremely busy and it would be exceedingly difficult to get them onto a site like this to answer questions (unless we would achieve the kind of professional standing a site like Math Overflow has). PhD students and PostDocs are the users that in my opinion could benefit the most from this site, and at the same time have the knowledge necessary to provide great answers, and more likely also the necessary time and inclination.</p>

<p>This site was targeted towards <em>all</em> users in the A51 proposal. So of course we received a large amount of questions from users that are not professionals. <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/195/should-we-worry-about-the-amount-of-non-expert-content-on-the-site">I did ask about this on meta early in our beta phase</a>, but there was no real conclusion to that. </p>

<p>While I'd personally like to lift the minimum entry barrier a bit, I'm also hesitant to actually propose this as I fear that this could get out of hand quickly. If there are no clear lines, this kind of decision gets rather arbitrary, and we end up with a pretty hostile site. </p>

<p>I think that this is one of the topics we have to seriously discuss at some point, but I doubt there is an easy answer. </p>
