Hey all -- the original version of this question was problematic and got (deserved) downvotes and close votes (and also lots of comments). I believe the OP's edit addresses those problems, but in the meantime the question has been closed. Several (but not all) close votes predated the edit. I'd like to see it reopened but if I do it unilaterally anybody who previously voted won't be able to vote again. So could we get some reopen votes or discussion here? Any problem with reopening this?

@MonicaCellio I have already cast my reopen vote. I didn't think this was off-topic before it was edited, and I don't think it's off-topic now. It's quite clearly about Judaism and something that a community of experts on Judaism would reasonably be expected to know something about more than people who aren't experts on Judaism would.

@YEZ, @DoubleAA, @IsaacMoses, @MonicaCellio, @GeminiMan, @msh210 - When you have a moment, I'd love your input (along with whomever else's) on this meta comment. Thanks and Shabbat Shalom!

@Lee @Lee I'm also trying to respond to myself ;-)

@MonicaCellio I don't remember what specific reason I had put for closing, but I would still think it qualifies as too broad - every shul pays depending on the size of the congregation and aggregate wealth of the congregation, how important a chazzan is to them, and a myriad of other factors. Unless he wants someone to conduct a survey of all kehillos, average the results, and give him a meaningless number, it doesn't seem to be a focused enough question.

editing a closed question from absolutely miserable to just miserable, and not addressing the close - should bother being approved? judaism.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/9137

My feeling is to reject as too minor.

@YEZ I agree.

@MonicaCellio I ended up doing custom reject explaining that it didn't address the close issue. If it hadn't been closed, it would have been a valid edit (which still needs further improvement) but as the case is, wasn't enough.

now he thinks he can ask the question again with a different user name - judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/37120/…

@IsaacMoses for my own knowledge of how to treat similar cases, did you do this because of the long-winded-ness or because of the meta-ness?

@YEZ I was considering doing something about the meta-ness, so I was curious.

@YEZ sigh. Thanks for the catch. Closed now, and comment left.

@YEZ Both, I guess. It was possible to discern what the actual question was, but only by wading through paragraphs of conversation, most of it irrelevant. It seemed to me that the easiest way to make it clear to OP what we are looking for in a question post here was to demonstrate.

@IsaacMoses לו יצוייר it was just the meta talk, should that generally be fixed? (I was actually in the middle of posting a question on meta with that as the case-study when I saw your edit)

@YEZ What @MonicaCellio said. Whether there's an online statistics repository or not, I strongly suspect that a professional chazzan or a shul's executive director (or functional equivalent) could report on a sense of the market. If the answer is "it depends a great deal on X, Y, and Z, but it could vary all the way from around $D1, when X=X1, Y=Y1, and Z=Z1 to $D2, when X=X2, Y=Y2, and Z=Z2" then so be it.

@YEZ Probably. Question posts should read well as question posts, not as records of conversations and edits. A little parenthetical inclusion of the latter, when relevant to the question at hand, could make sense.

p+pp0-

.0.,

@MonicaCellio Cat got your keyboard? :)

@IsaacMoses no, she got overwhelmed by your math equations for chazzan salary.

@IsaacMoses oops. Might have been the cat; might have been fallout from replacing the batteries. Sorry 'bout that.

(My mouse gives me a low-battery warning, but the keyboard just up and randomly cuts out when it needs new fuel. Was very puzzling the first few times it happened.)

@YEZ nah, I followed his equations just fine. :-)