It's not that a person downvoting your question is under any obligation to explain themselves to you in the comments. Often, I have no idea what may be the problem. It's different from closing in that you don't even have a formal reason, you have nothing to act on. But suppose you figure it out somehow. What's next? You can edit it, but your question will be too old by then to attract new potential upvoters. Those who downvoted it won't come back and withdraw their downvotes either. What am I supposed to do then? These edit-bans appear random and gratuitous to me. If they are expected to improve the quality of questions I ask, they can't possibly succeed in that as long as I'm not provided a clear and feasible road map to reach that mark. They just rob me of vital feedback which I don't have an abundance of – and which I need to learn efficiently
I want to stress that this question is about questions that were downvoted, but weren't closed or deleted. In the latter case, you are provided with a formal reason so at least you have something to act on (theoretically if not practically)