First, it should be noted that no one has cast an "off-topic" vote on any of your questions here, or any close votes period, so it is a little confusing *why* you are asking this (blatantly rhetorical) question beyond (transparent) game playing.

> I also posted a link for the research I performed.

As per my comments on [the question][1] (I'll provide a link, since you didn't), that "research" is on the same level as this: 

> My Ford Taurus is suffering [the engine trouble reported by others](https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ford+taurus+engine+trouble).  How do I disable the ABS and power steering in order to stop this?

I.e., it reads as a complete non-sequitor and implies 1 of 2 things:

1. The person who wrote it is very, very dazed and confused, has practically no experience using the internet, doing technical research, or asking for help online, and also does not understand anything about cars, and most likely is a new driver who has never had any trouble with one previously.

2. The person who wrote the question created that link while writing it as an excuse for supporting evidence, knowing anyone who clicked through would not bother reading any of it and hopefully presume #1.

There's nothing wrong with #1, and at first glance that's the way I would take this question, until I looked at your profile, which led me to your S.O. account, which makes me much, much more inclined to see this as #2.  And there is a problem with that.  It is indicative of contempt for taking things seriously and making an effort, so the idea here that this is really "a statement and link to research of a problem" is a bit hard to swallow, and the fact that **you did not include a link to the question here** further implies you know that could easily contradict the twisted picture you are trying to paint.

I will break down Ghanima's point a little more.  Here's what that "research" link is:

http://www.google.com/search?q=rpi3+lock+up

Any normal human adult who has used google for any length of time on one computer and paid any attention at all must almost certainly recognize that *the hits returned by this link depend in part on the search history of the person who clicks it*.  If most of *your* prior research on the pi pertained to bluetooth and wifi before you composed the question, perhaps you made a naive mistake.  Still a bit hard to believe though, since you obviously are not a person with no experience doing technical research or asking for help about it online.

In any case it does not explain, if you genuinely "visited the relevant links", you would not link to them directly.  Unless that would complicate your question...further evidence that the link, like this question, was **an intentional rhetorical ploy.**

For me, it leads to a bunch of stuff very much akin to the "Ford Taurus engine trouble" links.  Is there a pattern there?  Maybe if ran analysis on the first few thousand hits I could say there is.  

Let's have a look at the top five. Probably they are not that different than those of someone who never looked for anything involving this, as I would tend to use `"raspberry pi 3"` (quoted as a phrase), not `rpi3`. 

- https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=142481 This does indeed include the phrase "lock up" and *and* bluetooth apparently turns out to be the culprit, but what's interesting about it is bluetooth was not mentioned in that person's initial report of an issue.  It's mentioned in *the solution* and what's more, **exactly how to disable it is also mentioned**.  So if you already found a solution in the first link of your research, why are you asking about it?

- https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux Nothing to do with any of this but may indeed be indicative of my google chrome browser history since I'm there at least a few times a week.  However, it is also perhaps because of #3...

- https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/1360 Is indeed again a connection between "rpi3 lockup" and "bluetooth", but there's another common connection to the first hit: The use of PS3 controllers! Since they were posted a week apart, and the person who posted #1 found their solution the next day, very likely it was because of this.  But you do not mention PS3 controllers in your question...

- http://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/44232/raspian-migration-from-raspberry-pi-2-to-raspberry-pi-3 A question from here where the solution appears to have nothing to do with bluetooth or wifi.

- http://www.runeaudio.com/forum/the-raspberry-pi-3-t3256-80.html Completely tangential.

Based on this, I'll hazard a guess and say that if I did run analysis on the first few thousand hits, **there would be no pattern involving lock-ups caused by bluetooth and wifi**, and it certainly is not, as you labelled the link, research demonstrating anything about "the frequent lockups reported by others". In other words, your question here should be:

> Is a statement and an incredibly pathetic excuse for research considered off-topic? 

No, it's not considered "off-topic", and no one voted to close your question as such.  It should be considered pathetic, low quality, and demonstrative of, as the downvote tooltip says, "no research effort", and so at this point has received a number of those.

By my reading of Steve's initial comment, "off topic" refers to search hits which are a random assortment that do not mesh with the topic of disabling bluetooth and wifi.  Note again, he did not close the question, so he obviously did not mean *your question* is off-topic here, and the sentence is literally:

> A link to a google search where most of the links are off topic really!

Your misinterpretation is then born out in further comments on the question -- which, again, you presumably did not link to because you are trying to paint a different picture than the background reality presents.


  [1]: http://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/q/53149/5538