I once made a logical puzzle that deliberately had insufficient info to be answered directly. However, the insufficiency was sneaky and the puzzle misdirecting; that's what made it a clever puzzle in my head. The apparent answer was kind of difficult to get and simply required a close reading and basic probability knowledge. However, those who gave this answer all made an unfounded, yet reasonable, assumption. That was their mistake.
When I showed this, they told me that's not a puzzle! It has no answer! But what is an answer? Isn't it simply a response that resolves the question? If the question asks for information that is impossible to give, then the answer is the proof that the information is impossible to give. That resolves the question to the greatest degree possible. To say that that isn't an answer seems to be arbitrarily restricting the definition of answer, and I think doing so would be robbing e.g. a puzzle site from great potential. The world is filled with badly-posed questions and unknowable questions. Isn't puzzling supposed to be an exploration of questions, answers and the road between them?
I think so, but I do not know whether the users of Puzzling.SE thinks so. Therefore, my question is this: is it allowed to post puzzles who sneakily give too little info to be directly answered? By direct answer, I mean an answer that yields the requested info of the puzzle, as opposed to a meta-answer, which proves the requested info isn't derivable from the insufficient info given within the puzzle.