We get many questions on Academia SE which are closed because they depend too much on the individual who is asking and thus cannot be sufficiently generalised to be helpful to a wider audience. However, these questions often can still be answered, usually with a small amount of (perhaps) generic advice, especially if it's clear that the asker doesn't know much about how academia works and needs a quick helping hand.
A recent example of what I'm describing is here: Is My Mentality Good for Academia / Grad School?
In this case, the question is about the OP's personal mentality and therefore seems an obvious candidate for voting to close due to dependence on individual factors. The answer given basically boils down to "your mentality is similar to most academics", which is to some extent opinion-based and could be a comment rather than an answer. However, the answer may still have been helpful to the OP.
My question is: is it better to try and maintain the Stack Exchange ethos of hard questions and answers (more difficult on a "soft" site like Academia anyway where there is often no right answer) and therefore refrain from answering questions which are obvious candidates for closure? Or is it better to try and help as many of these individuals as possible by trying to answer before the question is closed?
I often wonder about doing the latter, especially if the user is new to SE or clearly inexperienced in the academic world and obviously not receiving guidance from peers and mentors in their own circle. But will this erode the purpose of SE over time?
This is my first question on Meta so any feedback, tag edits etc welcome!