The first link is actually the newer post and concludes:
Should not be answered, Should be closed
The second, older post concludes in an upvoted answer that it is not so clear cut and may be judged into three categories:
Too broad, Too personal, and Probably OK
but the downvoted answer was unconditional in favour of such posts.
Since there was recently some controversy (regarding two questions) that revolved around the same topic, I think this needs a bit more of a better defined approach for this site.
Both suffered from being posed by a newbie, not being edited after being put on hold by the OP, and different types of ambiguities associated to them that gave the most reason to doubt any decision.
While (a) had some merits in its original form that might indicate a general desire to discuss the topic in its generic form, (b) was clearly a request for personalised medical advice and diagnosis.
Both questions were edited to "make them more generic" after being put on hold, (a) stayed closed, (b) was re-opened.
While it's natural to disagree on many points, comparing these two cases seems like we do not adhere to our own guidelines uniformly, or we might have too widely differing readings on them. In all help documents there is no mention of "differential diagnosis exemplified with actual, acute personal pictures" but multiple times "personalised medical advice is off-topic here"; for some reasons.
Now I am quite unsure on how to read and apply the guidelines. Since (b) was the reason for posting this, I'd like to concentrate the discussion primarily on this "case".
As far as I saw it: there was no edit from the OP, no real feedback, blurry pictures of unknown colour accuracy, no closeup view in person, no answer to questions and an ambivalent backstory. How can anyone differentiate with confidence from these pictures alone whether it is bacterial, viral or chemical (or other causes) and how seriously it will progress? In case my eyes are deteriorating: it's about the principle of looking at pictures with dubious quality
Since relevant parts of the community re-opened the question despite my concerns, I have to accept that, and I do. This is not about an appeal to this decision.
Nevertheless, I think a more properly defined guideline on different types of diagnosis is needed. Where do we stand on this and can we come up with a more uniform policy that is up-to-date to a current consensus on this issue?