I just googled
besorgen vs erhalten, received the question in question as the first google result, clicked on it, thus visiting the German SE site for the very first time, and found exactly the answer I was looking for.
In short, I was delighted. But I was also told that this was "not a real question".
So I was simultaneously impressed with the Stack Exchange concept (of which I'm already a huge fan), and annoyed by the SE "super users" who always seem more willing to close a flawed but promising question than to improve it. This pattern is all too common on SE, as has been discussed ad nauseam, in various settings.
I'd also like to defend the general concept of word comparison questions for foreign language SE sites. I think such word comparison questions can be extremely useful and are maybe even one of the primary ways a foreign language SE can help a language learner.
Here's an example:
I'm currently learning German. I'm using no fewer than three different dictionary resources, and have come across multiple verbs that are all defined very, very similarly:
These words are defined across my multiple dictionaries with some combination of the following translations:
But here's the problem: each dictionary uses a different subset combination of these translations for each word. So it's virtually impossible for me to discern the subtle differences between these words using a dictionary alone. This is exactly where a foreign language SE site should be useful.
I should be able to turn to the corresponding foreign language SE site to find help teasing out the subtle differences between these words by asking a word comparison question. This is the kind of information that one will never find in a dictionary, but is perfectly suited to SE. @uncovery's answer to the question in question was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for and is a great example of how helpful answers to word comparison questions can be.
Any kind of snappy
check the dictionary, dufus answer to a question of this kind is ineffectual and annoying.