Even adding more historians isn't going to help, because the ultimate issue is that it takes time for someone to write an answer that's up to our standards. This is AskHistorians, not AskReddit - we expect answers here to be based on research in scholarly sources and to thoroughly cover the topic ("in-depth and comprehensive" is a phrase you will see a lot around here), and that does take a while for someone to do, especially if they're trying to do other work at the same time. Add to that that questions here are typically not phrased or from the angle that a historian is used to looking at a topic from, and may even be full of misconceptions that need to be dispelled before someone can really get at the underlying question.

For instance, the question "Why do boomers hate their wives?", which I suspect is the one that sparked your own question. It's a provocative title that is more nuanced in the body text: why do so many sitcoms produced by or aimed at Boomers in the 1970s/1980s show marriages full of animosity? A historian in this area would probably think more about the family dynamics of sitcoms in general rather than phrasing it in this way, which is the first barrier. (Actually, the first barrier is that "1970s-1980s sitcom history" is an extremely niche topic.) Then we have a couple of factual issues: in the 1970s and 1980s, it's really the "Silent Generation" that would have been in charge of television shows, not Boomers, and sitcoms of that era were also way more likely to show loving families than hostile ones. So the hypothetical historian trying to answer this question has to do a lot of work even before they get to the main question (which might be something like "what are the origins of 'take my wife' humor, and how was it received in its time?"), which is going to take more time than you realize.

What people find interesting (which = upvotes) does not always line up with what a historian can answer. That means that questions take longer than you might expect to be answered, and sometimes go completely unanswered.

Do you understand that the historians who answer questions don’t work for reddit or get paid for their time here? They have their own jobs and lives and they kindly spend some of their free time answering what they can.

Considering that, I find it nice that any questions get answered. I really don’t understand the entitled point of view that it must take to actually wonder why all of these random questions that redditors post on a whim don’t receive equal attention. That’s an expectation a reasonable person would only have if people were being paid to work here.

You've already had an answer pointing out that there is an expectation of an in depth, specific answer. If you are going to honestly make the attempt at providing you need quite a bit of in-depth knowledge - and that brings us to another issue, which is specialisms.

There are, contrary to popular cultural depictions of academics, no generalists in academia. If you are an expert then you are an expert in a narrow subfield. For example, I am and would likely be described as a historian. But actually I am only really an expert on certain things - which included gender history, numismatics, historiographic theory, South Asia - but not any combination of those things. So I can, and have, sometimes answered a question about Roman numismatics (though I am not an expert on Rome) or South Asian art (though I'm not an art historian) but I could not answer a question about Roman art - that would be too far removed from my area of expertise.

And I log in on a Monday and look to see if there is one question I can answer. If there is I answer it. But sometimes I find a question that I could usefully contribute to but it would either take too much time or my answer would be very partial because it overlaps so many inter-related fields.

Take for example the recent question on why Foucalt and others have been so influential https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/mopo4j/how_did_french_poststructuralists_particularly/. I could speak to that, it is a historiographic question. But... this is a big 'but'. There are a lot of inter-related issues. The person asking the question is asking about an academia wide effect - I do not know why political science or sociology picked those theories up, its 20 years since I read anything in those fields and I was a long way short of an expert when I did. Even if I focus exclusively on history there are a lot of inter-related issues. So, there is the intellectual prestige enjoyed by the Annales school, which was being extensively translated in the 50s and 60s and primed historians to see France as a place to go for theoretical positions. Then there are the translators - Gyatri Spivak is often cited as being as important to the reception of Derrida as the original work (she translated On Grammatology in 1976). And of course there is the 1990s. The 90s are when I was first reading history as a student and its the moment when people started to pay attention widely to post-modernist positions in history. There is the question of what the real world inflections were at the time, how interacted with other academics trends, and so on.

As you can see that seemingly quite simple question demands a lot of different bits of specialist knowledge. And that is the reason that I'm not answering it.

Please check the wiki for details about this: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules

Thanks for that clarification.

The rules are too strenuous. I understand why we want historical accuracy, but a lot of questions could be answers with a cursory view of history. Lots of people know history without having an advanced degree in it.