It's a valid question, but perhaps not a fair comparison. The difference is that the C's are an experiment started by Laura - she made the contact, she initiated the conversation, and that already means it's not reasonable to have "expectations" for what you will get back. It's like if you showed up at my house and rang the doorbell, I'd expect a clear and concise explanation for what you want, but I'm under no such obligation. If I showed up at your house and rang your doorbell, it's not your responsibility to give me exactly what I want and how I want it.
The other part is that we're talking about a less "nuts and bolts" subject matter with the C's. They are "separated" from our reality/3d perspective by several layers (densities) of abstraction. As they have said before, information has to travel "down" through 5th and 4th densities and finally makes it to 3rd, also passing through our subconscious mind on its way to the board. So this presents a unique challenge, it's like you trying to explain something to a dog who then has to pass it along to the leaf, which passes it to a rock. A lot of such information takes the form of symbolism and gross simplification for our consumption, and we're lucky it's decipherable at all!
I understand what you're saying, but humans can talk to each other frankly and directly pretty easily. We gotta ask the question - what's the purpose of being cryptic? Usually code is used to hide the message from those it is not meant for, but can be easily unlocked by the intended audience. If the general public is the intended audience, why make people jump through hoops? And as Joe says, if it has multiple interpretations, is it useful? If the code is consistently decipherable, and anyone can reliably convert it into plain English with no possibility for multiple meanings, then why bother with a code?
The only thing I can think of us that the communicator creates multiple possible interpretations of his clues, and therefore can't be accused of explicitly "revealing" secrets because he can plausibly deny ever actually saying anything particular - it was simply "interpreted". And if that's the case, we're back to "but how do we know what was really meant" problem - and whether any given interpretation is right, or any future event only coincidentally matches a specific interpretation. This also keeps it out of "mainstream" attention - because it's so obfuscated you can't ever be sure anyone is actually leaking anything, it may as well be just a prank, and everyone is chasing rainbows and seeing what they wanna see.
As it stands, it's a curiosity. But I think too many people are already taking it on faith as "truth" due to wishful thinking, and would be served by being more critical and impartial. Their conviction that Trump and his posse are on their side makes them more likely to get excited, intrigued, and invested. And who knows, maybe that's the point. The PTB are known to tell the truth when it suits them, especially if it's little crumbs just to keep people hopeful. Reminds me of the NESARA thing.