What's up with all the vague protocols?
This is too long for a comment, so I post my thoughts about this here:

This falls into different important parts here: One is an insufficient understanding of the techniques on which the method is based. This makes it hard to decide which steps are important and which are not. One prominent example would be the use of EDTA in DNA gel running buffers. This recipe originated from RNA research (where you need the EDTA) which where then simply used for DNA as well. Since it worked somehow, it was never really changed.I have seen enough people in the lab clinging to old photocopies of protocols without knowing why they do certain steps.

And the other (connected) issue is that protocols are usually passed down through labs. Things are then done in a certain way because they have always done in this way (with some changes in the protocol probably not even documented) and are not changed. People are even told to use the exact routine, even if this makes absolutely no sense.

In publications there may also be another thing which comes into play: The fear that someone uses the own methods and will then be faster than the own group. At least some groups only publish incomplete and vague methods because of this reason. Then it's a thing of space: There are character limitations in publications and when you need to save a few hundred characters when the article is too long, it's much easier to shave the methods than the discussion.