I think the kind of thing you're most worried about already is off topic. The main issue I see with these questions is they are mainly truth questions (which we don't do). People asking them typically don't care about theological constructs, different interpretation methods or doctrine, they just want cake. With frosting. In the case of eschatology, they usually just eat the sprinkles anyway.
Strike two is their inevitable speculative nature. Few of the structures that we use to frame questions are suitable because most of those structures, as a whole, decline to comment on the matter. In the case of the question you linked somebody came along afterwards and tacked on a tag dispensationalism. This makes perfect sense as far as it goes because dispensationalism is the only framework in which the question could possibly be made to mean anything, and the most likely one for somebody which that kind of view of eschatology to be asking about. However its a bit like slapping a band-aid on an arterial bleed. The question is "Does X mean Y?" and Z is the only construct where X could possibly mean Y, so throw it in that bucket. Except that bucket has a veritable ocean of different interpretations and could not be sufficient to provide an authoritative referenced answer this this question. In order to do that you would have to pick some group or individual that has made particular predictions. For example you could ask about whether this prediction matches those of Camping or LaHaye. Those would be specific enough to give the question a real answer, but then basically the question would morph to "Dude Y says Z, is this true?" and we are back to problem 1.
The long and the short of it is that I think the nature of what people want to learn from their question is inherently outside the realm of constructive QnA that we're trying to implement here.
I'm sure it is possible to ask related questions on Biblical Hermeneutics, but the kind that show up here first don't tend to be very portable. Questions on BH need to start with a specific text and be open to various interpretive methods. The questions that show up here text to start with a doctrinal framework (even though as mentioned above they rarely know what that is or why it's important) and a specific application they want to verify. Coming at it from that direction isn't going to fly on BH. By the time the question was edited inside out to make it fit, I doubt the question would still be of interest to the OP and it might be more productive for an interested party that knows BH to just ask a related question and drop a link in a comment on the closed one here for the OP to follow if it still interests them.
