Since in order to be able to speak English fluently, we need to be able to hear what the native speakers are saying. So why don't you allow the transcription requests as the proposal by an another user gets net 6 upvotes for audio/pronunciation uploading request?
That feature request is not:
- a request to allow audio recording request questions from learners;
- a request to allow transcription request questions from learners;
- a request for respondents to record their entire answer or some other lengthy work.
It is a request for a feature that would allow users to easily supplement their well-written, high-quality answers with audio recordings. In other words, users would have the option to provide a recording of a particular word, for example, in order to demonstrate their point. It hasn't even been implemented, but if it were, we would still limit or prohibit pronunciation/transcription requests as they are too broad or too localized (e.g. Here's an essay I found. Please read it aloud for me; Here's ten minutes of audio. Please transcribe it for me; Here's a random clip I found on Youtube. What is the word the speaker is saying in "You guys have a XXX every weekend?")
If I understand correctly, you're asking
Why are transcription requests prohibited while there seems to be support for an audio clip feature?
Well, firstly, the audio clip feature is meant to be a supplementary feature. It's meant to supplement well-written, high-quality answers that we typically expect on the site.
Transcription requests are, generally speaking, too broad (Here's ten minutes of audio, What does it say?) or too localized (only a few people are going to listen to this). Even if the audio has mass appeal to learners, I don't think it's the site's goal to become a transcription database. I'm sure there are other good reasons why transcription requests are off-topic.
If you are able to provide your own transcription, but are unsure of a particular word or phrase, then that seems "passable", as far as I can tell. I wouldn't be surprised if that too received close/down votes though.
As I see it, a transcription request roughly parallels a proofreading request. These have been discussed previously, though I couldn't quickly find an exact one on transcriptions:
If you meant transcription in a different way, like supplementing a question about some audio, then that's kind of mandatory. For example, if you heard "nails on a chalkboard" in a dialogue on Youtube and you want to know the meaning, then you are expected to provide a transcription of the dialogue. The post must be as self-contained as possible. A link to the clip without a transcription of the dialogue is not sufficient.
I still don't understand your problem, but I think I'm getting closer. I think you want to know why your post was closed, yet there's support for a "similar" feature.
In a now-deleted answer, you made reference to these three questions you posted:
- What do the phrase “Reeyan's seacrest” and the word “fraggle” mean in a sketch?
- The tense of “God”
- Could anyone tell me what the “robby ( robbie? ) way” is?
Actually, they all received a score of +3. The first got an answer with +10 and and the second got an answer with +6. The third was closed with no answer.
All three asked about something you heard: the first on a comedy sketch, the second on a song, and the third on a debate.
They all had links. They all had context (e.g. your own research or understanding of the problem).
But the first two had transcriptions. The third did not. It didn't even include a timestamp (you should always include one).
I didn't listen to all the audio, but I assume your first two transcriptions were mostly correct. The third one, you simply stated the thing you heard (which turned out to be wrong).
Regardless, the first two had instructional value. Users were able to explain words or grammar points that were confusing. In the third, you heard "robby", but they were saying "Roe v. Wade". As a user commented, the third one seem more like a one-off error that had very little instructional value* for future readers. (Remember, posts are not only for you. They're for future visitors as well!) That's why that post was closed.
Like I stated previously, even if the audio clip feature is implemented, that does not mean all audio related questions will be on-topic. I imagine we will limit or prohibit question like "Did I hear this right?", "Did I say this right?", etc. We will always ask for specific problems/concerns and context. If you don't provide that, your question might be closed. Meta is a little different, but the idea is roughly the same. If you had clearly explained your meta post and provided all the context from the beginning, then we could have more easily addressed your concerns (and may be you'd have fewer down votes).
You said in a comment
Yes, you are right. But sometimes, only because OP( I ) asked for what he or she (native speakers)are saying, I had my threads closed in my experience.
As I have shown above, the question was closed because of the CONTENT of your post, not because YOU asked it.
I can assure you: no one is targeting you. I took a look at a few of your posts, and in fact, it looks like they were mostly positively received (e.g. more positive scores than negatives, very few closed posts). If you occasionally receive close/down votes, that does not mean users are targeting you. That you means there is room for improvement. If you consistently follow that feedback, you will consistently receive positive attention.
*In my view, it might be worth exploring the theory/linguistics behind what you misheard (not sure), but I'd leave that up to the community.