Taking another point of view on this matter, I imagine the users interested on this site would revolve around a few groups or profiles such as:
- The buddhist
- The scholar (not necessarily buddhist)
- The meditator (not necessarily buddhist)
- The newcomer (perhaps with a different religious background)
I think all the above should be welcomed. And one tricky thing is that they don't necessarily write questions their siblings may find of their taste.
While a buddhist might have more interest in questions around the Dharma (conceptually and/or experientially), he/she could be less inclined about history or scholar nitpicking. Even less about "dharma-off-topic" (ie, questions "that do not lead to nirvana" -- "what is the origin of the universe ?", "can a woman become buddha?", etc).
The scholar, however, may be more inclined to history details, "comparative religion", folkloric narratives, symbolism, cultural and philosophical questions pertaining to buddhism world, etc (I'm not a b. scholar so these examples might sound a little bit naive).
The meditator, as someone interested in questions about techniques of meditation and its effects, would also be one raising questions about the use of drugs and what current scientific experiments are there and what they say.
Finally, the new comer, as someone with less exposure to buddhism, would probably have a broader range (as this is a broader category). Also, naturally he/she would be the one to employ more often questions "that do not lead to nirvana" (say, to assess if buddhism devalues the female genre, or some race, or religion) or involving comparisons with other religions: and that is just natural, to try to understand something new comparing with something we are familiar with. He/she may also be one who writes "superficial" questions (from the point of view of the "initiated"). And then, either the more experienced users bear with it and provide a safe space for that kind of inquiry and support the arousal of interest with proper guidance, or the bar is actually on a higher place, and I think this should be clear.
(of course, interests intersect across all of these users with varying intensities)
Personally, I think andrei's "like" list comprises the questions I think are the most important, by any measure, as they pertain to the actual practice. But that is how I personally assign value, not my evaluation of on-topic Q's for this side. As for that, considering what I understand to be B.SE's scope and the sketch of profiles above, I find myself supporting all his "don't like" list as well (with the exception of answering "comparative analysis", I'm convinced SE is not the place for that kind of Q&A).