I'd like to learn how to proceed in a case where there is disagreement between reviewers about the quality of a question and where it's not clear (at least to me) how I could improve the post further.
I posted a question which apparently wasn't that great. Some editors kindly invested some effort to reword parts of it and managed to clarify the intend behind my question. However, it was closed within a few hours for being too broad.
That's all fine, but at least six people seemed to like the question, four of which have the right to cast reopening votes. This gives me the impression that the question isn't all bad, but needs to be improved nonetheless. My problem is that I don't see how.
My – obviously limited – knowledge make it seem like my question could be answerable within one or two paragraphs. To me, a good answer would be a simple "none" or a short list of protocols, possibly including a brief explanation. People with far more insights into the matter seem to disagree, so I guess my assumption is false.
I'd like improve the question, so not so subtle hints to were I went wrong would be greatly appreciated.