To repeat myself, even though it was quoted in the question:

Why is it not sufficient to say "if a question is trivial, boring, and demonstrates little to no research, downvote it"? Note that the hover-text for downvoting states quite clearly that a question or answer should be downvoted when it "does not show any research effort" or "it is unclear or not useful"!

I think we can generally agree that trivial questions that demonstrate little to no research aren't usually what we'd consider "good content".

However, there are three reasons I can see for allowing them (i.e. not closing them):

1. First and foremost, "too trivial" is entirely subjective. What is too trivial for one person may be interesting to another. That, I believe, is exactly why "does not show any research effort" is wording directly associated with downvoting questions. There's no way that I can think of where we can objectively draw a line and say "on this side of this definition, it is too trivial and should be closed, and on the other side, it is acceptable". If someone can come up with a clear, objective definition of "too trivial" that can be consistently and clearly communicated, I'd be all for it, but I don't believe it is possible (I could be wrong, though).
2. What seems like a trivial or simple question could result in an exceptionally good answer. It's happened before. I don't have time to search for examples now, but I'm pretty sure they're out there.
3. Encouraging new users. Nothing discourages someone from participating on a site like their first attempt at participation being slapped down with a "sorry, your contribution isn't up to our high standards". Not every one of these questions will come from a new user, but some, including the one that sparked this debate, will be first-time posts.

To repeat myself, even though it was quoted in the question:

Why is it not sufficient to say "if a question is trivial, boring, and demonstrates little to no research, downvote it"? Note that the hover-text for downvoting states quite clearly that a question or answer should be downvoted when it "does not show any research effort" or "it is unclear or not useful"!

I think we can generally agree that trivial questions that demonstrate little to no research aren't usually what we'd consider "good content".

However, there are three reasons I can see for allowing them (i.e. not closing them):

1. First and foremost, "too trivial" is entirely subjective. What is too trivial for one person may be interesting to another. That, I believe, is exactly why "does not show any research effort" is wording directly associated with downvoting questions. There's no way that I can think of where we can objectively draw a line and say "on this side of this definition, it is too trivial and should be closed, and on the other side, it is acceptable". While that may be true to varying extents with some of our other close reasons, at least they all have basic descriptions that provide some context. If we can't come up with a sentence or two to expand on what distinguishes "trivia" from "too trivial", then we will have a difficult time guiding users to improve their questions. If someone can come up with a clear, objective definition or description of "too trivial" that can be consistently and clearly communicated, I'd be all for it, but I don't believe it is possible (I could be wrong, though).
2. What seems like a trivial or simple question could result in an exceptionally good answer. It's happened before. I don't have time to search for examples now, but I'm pretty sure they're out there.
3. Encouraging new users. Nothing discourages someone from participating on a site like their first attempt at participation being slapped down with a "sorry, your contribution isn't up to our high standards". Not every one of these questions will come from a new user, but some, including the one that sparked this debate, will be first-time posts.

To repeat myself, even though it was quoted in the question:

Why is it not sufficient to say "if a question is trivial, boring, and demonstrates little to no research, downvote it"? Note that the hover-text for downvoting states quite clearly that a question or answer should be downvoted when it "does not show any research effort" or "it is unclear or not useful"!

I think we can generally agree that trivial questions that demonstrate little to know research aren't usually what we'd consider "good content".

However, there are three reasons I can see for allowing them (i.e. not closing them):

1. First and foremost, "too trivial" is entirely subjective. What is too trivial for one person may be interesting to another. That, I believe, is exactly why "does not show any research effort" is wording directly associated with downvoting questions. There's no way that I can think of where we can objectively draw a line and say "on this side of this definition, it is too trivial and should be closed, and on the other side, it is acceptable". If someone can come up with a clear, objective definition of "too trivial" that can be consistently and clearly communicated, I'd be all for it, but I don't believe it is possible (I could be wrong, though).
2. What seems like a trivial or simple question could result in an exceptionally good answer. It's happened before. I don't have time to search for examples now, but I'm pretty sure they're out there.
3. Encouraging new users. Nothing discourages someone from participating on a site like their first attempt at participation being slapped down with a "sorry, your contribution isn't up to our high standards". Not every one of these questions will come from a new user, but some, including the one that sparked this debate, will be first-time posts.

To repeat myself, even though it was quoted in the question:

Why is it not sufficient to say "if a question is trivial, boring, and demonstrates little to no research, downvote it"? Note that the hover-text for downvoting states quite clearly that a question or answer should be downvoted when it "does not show any research effort" or "it is unclear or not useful"!

I think we can generally agree that trivial questions that demonstrate little to no research aren't usually what we'd consider "good content".

However, there are three reasons I can see for allowing them (i.e. not closing them):

1. First and foremost, "too trivial" is entirely subjective. What is too trivial for one person may be interesting to another. That, I believe, is exactly why "does not show any research effort" is wording directly associated with downvoting questions. There's no way that I can think of where we can objectively draw a line and say "on this side of this definition, it is too trivial and should be closed, and on the other side, it is acceptable". If someone can come up with a clear, objective definition of "too trivial" that can be consistently and clearly communicated, I'd be all for it, but I don't believe it is possible (I could be wrong, though).
2. What seems like a trivial or simple question could result in an exceptionally good answer. It's happened before. I don't have time to search for examples now, but I'm pretty sure they're out there.
3. Encouraging new users. Nothing discourages someone from participating on a site like their first attempt at participation being slapped down with a "sorry, your contribution isn't up to our high standards". Not every one of these questions will come from a new user, but some, including the one that sparked this debate, will be first-time posts.