I've seen posts which summarize research get massive upvotes and similar posts get downvotes.
To answer this, it would probably help to see specific examples. Without them, I can only guess wildly. So here are my wild guesses:
1) The article itself should be nicely written, easy to read. Short introduction at the beginning, easily legible text, summary at the bottom (with bold font), then references... I think this is close to optimal format.
2) Don't exaggerate. Don't pretend your references say more than they really do; don't pretend they are more reliable than they really are. (Also: don't post random stuff in "Main".)
3) It also depends on whether readers are interested in the topic, how much the topic was already discussed, and whether your article brings something new.
4) Most important: thousand other random factors. :D
For example, my rating of this article based on this criteria would be: 1) I like the way you write; 2) there is not much research in the article, but you don't exaggerate, so this makes it completely okay for me; 3) the topic seems useful and I don't remember it reading recently, but I also don't see much new information here. 4) Originally I didn't upvote the article, but when writing this comment I realised I actually like it and would like to encourage you, so I upvoted it now.
I agree with your breakdown, do you think this post would count as 'random stuff'? I've spent a lot of time browsing through Main and some pretty random stuff gets posted there, including by people like Luke and Eliezer. I did strongly consider posting to Discussion, but thought posting to Main would make a good experiment.
There are any number of reasons why the Less Wrong crowd might be interested in mindfulness meditation. Cultivating an ability to observe thoughts without being swept away in them could help in noticing when you're confused, looking into the dark, and, if you are skilled enough, actually changing your mind. I've been on a couple of retreats myself, and I value meditation because it's a useful technique with a lot of field testing that can be studied free of the religious context it generally comes packaged in. The results have been positive -- I've learned what a mess my mind really is and my metacognitive awareness has improved noticeably.
Recent research suggests that we can add improved cognitive functioning to the list (Mrazek et al., 2013).
There is no shortage of researchers and individuals interested in better thinking, and perhaps the most effective way of doing so is to "target a cognitive process underlying performance in a variety of contexts". A great example of such a process is "the ability to attend to a task without distraction", as unrelated thoughts compete with the job at hand for limited working memory. Based on this it makes sense to hypothesize that, if mindfulness training can reduce mind-wandering and distractedness, it ought to boost mental performance.
Psychologists at the University of California Santa Barbara examined this hypothesis using a test of reading comprehension and a test of working memory capacity. Forty eight subjects, all undergraduates, were given two tasks: one, a modified version of the GRE verbal section and two, a test of working memory called the operation span task. The verbal section simply had all the vocabulary questions removed, while the operation span task alternates something that must be memorized (like a letter) with something irrelevant (like an equation which must be evaluated as true or false). If compared to someone else you can hold a longer string of memorized letters in your mind while also accurately evaluating equations, then you have a better working memory.
Importantly, during these tasks a couple of different techniques were used to assess mind-wandering, including asking subjects to assess themselves after the fact and asking them semi-randomly during the task.
Then the subjects were divided into a group which attended a two-week class on nutrition and a group which attended a two-week class on mindfulness meditation. Meditation instruction was pretty straightforward:
Two-weeks later, the groups were tested again and it was found that:
I couldn't help but wonder about how much of a positive effect could be had by someone who didn't actually do the meditation. An interesting additional experiment to have done would've been explaining (b) and (c) (in the first block quote) to participants, asking them how much their minds wandered semi-randomly during a task and then after a task, and testing them again two weeks later. Is noticing the problem enough to get a partial solution, or does flexing your attention add something that you can't get any other way?
This is good news for those of us who would like to get the most out of our brains in an age before really high-octane cognitive enhancements are available.