There have been numerous discussions over the years on the acceptability of partial answers:
| Year | Q&A | Theme |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Should I answer the question with just a partial solution? | General acceptability of posting partial solutions to the problem |
| 2012 | Should I downvote partial answer? | Self-evident: whether partial answers should be considered useful |
| 2012 | Is it okay to put partial answers? | Also self-evident: is this acceptable to post partial answers? |
| 2014 | Is a partial answer OK? | Also concerned with providing a partial solution |
| 2015 | Partial self-answering etiquette | Ethical considerations of accepting partial self-answers |
| 2017 | Best practices for partial answers | Advice for writing acceptable partial answers |
| 2019 | Why was my answer to my own question deleted? | "Partial answers/workarounds are considered answers." |
| 2021 | What's the etiquette for improving answers that only address part of a question? | Guidance on how to improve partial answers |
None of the those (except for maybe the one from 2017), however, address the following part in the help center (the highlighted part) on how to answer:
Still no answer to the question, and you have the same problem? Help us find a solution by researching the problem, then contribute the results of your research and anything additional you’ve tried as a partial answer. That way, even if we can’t figure it out, the next person has more to go on. You can also vote up the question or set a bounty on it so the question gets more attention.
This part seems to be in direct contradiction as to what is considered to be a partial answer as per community consensus (if you examine posts listed above, the general idea is that it is ok to post partial answers as long as they actually solve a part of the original problem).
This clause creates a loophole that allows "answers" that would be better off as comments, edits to the question, or potential new questions that could be used as duplicate targets if answered to be posted in a forum-like manner as a "me too" response. This also makes NAA flagging such responses, by the letter of the law, incorrect too.
The concern is not theoretical. It is already used (see relevant SOCVR discussion) to justify contesting the removal of such content. Please note that I am not saying that the information provided by such responses is not valuable, just that they are using the wrong medium and thus should not be officially endorsed.
This discussion has been brought up at least once before in 2016 as a clarification request that lead nowhere (given the discussion there, I accept the possibility of duplicate linking to it as the target, but I would like to make this a part of the faq instead should the discussion be in favor of the proposal without invalidating the old Q&A):
Why does the Help center seem to indicate "Me too!" is a valid answer?
I propose removing the clause from the help center to stop confusing both conscientious users that do read the help center as we ask them to (and thus justifiably think this is an acceptable way to answer) and curators that find themselves in the predicament of acting against the literal interpretation of the rules.
Shamelessly piggybacking on the famous Shog9's image on what is and what is not an NAA, here is a proposed revised rendition clarifying the abovementioned ambiguity:
