In the spirit of being more welcoming, I'd like to revisit our use of close votes for questions that are "primarily opinion-based." 

I'm specifically thinking of the recent question [Street food spots in Hong Kong](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/115051/street-food-spots-in-hong-kong), which is teetering on the edge of closure right now without so much as a single comment. Yes, the question does call for "must visit street food spots," and yes, that is a matter of opinion. But I see no reason to close it. 

If you see a question like that, can we consider taking a moment to try to make it work rather than voting to close? The question could be rephrased as "where are the popular street food spots" or "commonly recommended street food spots" or something similar if the "must visit" terminology bothers you.

That doesn't mean opening the floodgates to completely broad questions like "where should I go in Europe?" But many questions call for some degree of judgement and opinion, and we should try to apply sensible defaults when deciding what we can answer. If a question can be reasonably saved from closure with a simple edit, what if we consider giving that a try instead of closing it? If a question could involve some degree of opinion but isn't primarily opinion-based, consider not voting to close. 

I've been trying more often to ask myself "what's the purpose of closing this question?" when I consider close votes or do reviews. There often is a purpose (e.g. to keep the site from becoming a travel agency or because a question could have an infinite number of equally valid answers or because the question is incomprehensible or unanswerable or missing key details). But if I can't articulate some purpose for closure, rather than looking for an argument why a question could be argued to break the rules, I'm leaving it open.