This question was recently posted, asking very ambiguously about the Windows 7 SP1 RC. I voted to close it as "not a real question", since it was just asking for comments on whether anybody had tried it out and "what they thought". At the time that I voted to close, I posted a comment pointing out that no real question had been asked, and that it would likely be closed unless it were edited to have a real question about SP1. The question was then edited, first a non-helpful edit by the original poster but then an edit by another user which turned it into a valid question. By the time this edit had occurred, the question had 4 close votes, but I figured since it had been edited to the point of being a real question, it would be worth answering since I had relevant information.
So here is my question then. Is it appropriate to answer a question which I previously voted to close, given that I feel it's been edited to the point of being an acceptable question? There's no way to retract a close-vote, or else I would have. The question was subsequently closed shortly after I answered, but not before the answer had been accepted. What is the appropriate protocol in a situation like this? I don't want to be seen as rep-whoring by posting an answer on a question I initially voted to close, but I also feel like it's reasonable to post an answer when a question has been edited to the point of being valid. Did I act reasonably in this situation, and in the future, how should I approach questions like this?
Furthermore, with this question specifically, I feel like it's now a good enough question that it might deserve re-opening, however a diamond mod cast the final close vote, so is there a reason I'm overlooking for why it is still a bad question? Is it due to SP1 being RC, or is the question itself still not within SuperUser's guidelines? I feel like it probably is.