Why do people not understand a question for "scientifically" standards is not meaning "examples"?

Question

I have a question about my Software Engineering Stack Exchange post: Are there descriptive examples of the architecture of standard content management systems, that provide full user rights handling?

I read quite a few questions on this softwareengineering section of stackexchange, and the scientific quality of answers seemed high.

But the problem is that those who jump on all new questions first in their haste - haste for whatever reason - regularily seem only to read what they are expecting or wishing to read.

In my question I explicitly ask for a "scientific description", not for examples or differing views.

Is it really so difficult understanding the difference between a proofable or scientifically accepted concept and mere examples 'n' point of views?

Where do you position yourself on this?

Answer 1

I did not help to close your question, but I actually would have, if I had seen it at the time you posted it, and I will try to explain you why.

First, your question title explicitly asks for examples, so how can someone actually not interpreting that as a question for examples?

However, even if you would remove that word from the title, you are definitely asking for third-party resources, which is off-topic for this site, as mentioned in the help section of this site.

And finally, I don't share your expectations about the existence about "scientifically accepted concepts" for CMS architectures, so in my eyes, your question is based on a false assumption. Maybe there are some community-accepted standards, I don't know, but in software and software architecture, there is never just "one truth".