@Sven it's broader because if all major browsers sensibly fall through to the next IP if they fail to connect to one of the IPs returned in an A record, then RRDNS is a good failover strategy. The top answer at the second question is incomplete because it just skips that point entirely and assumes that it's necessary to update your DNS record to remove IPs when they become unavailable, which needn't be the case. To determine whether the claim that RRDNS doesn't work as a failover system is actually true, you have to know how browsers behave.

@yagmoth555 As for the request for learning materials close reason, it clearly doesn't apply here; no off-site materials are being requested and none would need to be provided in order to fully answer.

@yagmoth555 So, do you also think that Jeff's question is too broad? Or serverfault.com/q/60553/147556? Neither you nor Sven have yet addressed my point that any question about whether it's a good idea to use DNS round robin as a failover technique is necessarily broader than this one, because you need to know the answer to this one in order to have an informed view on whether it makes sense to use DNS round robin for failover... and yet the mods have closed this while leaving the other questions that are broader than it alone.

And finally, whatever the merits of closure, this answer gives no indication of why the question was locked; I don't see any reason for the decision about whether the question should be closed to be made unilaterally by a mod and then taken out of the hands of the community. Though that is something that only @womble may be able to explain.

It seems to me that the asker in this case is being penalised not for the actual breadth of their question - which is not really that broad, and is far narrower than other questions on the topic - but for acknowledging its breadth explicitly in the body of the question (by noting that browsers may have different behaviours). I don't think that's right or useful, and think the question should be reopened; an up-to-date answer would be more useful to me than the woolly and subjective takes on DNS round robin that Server Fault does allow!

And yet the number of major browsers and different possible behaviours is still finite, and giving an answer that carefully describes many different browser-specific behaviours (if they exist) is possible. And: all that information is relevant to Jeff's question at serverfault.com/q/101053/147556. If this question is too broad, then how can Jeff's question not be too broad when any answer to this question would be a relevant subpart of an answer to Jeff's?