<p>I find that many questions go unanswered for lack of a <em>great</em> answer. That applies to both CV and here on CV meta. Whether this is due to <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5370/is-the-datascience-se-harming-cvs-answer-rate">brain drain</a>, or a flood new users, or perfectionism, is hard to say.</p>

<p>Moreover, a lot of ill-posed questions amount to the asker not knowing enough about the field to set them in the right direction, and in the review queue there are plenty of questions that are clear enough to answer, but not clear enough to answer <em>well</em>. <strong><em>Edit</em></strong>: Other times, the question has an answer, but it seems that none of the expert users on the site know the answer.</p>

<p>Personally, I know a little about a lot, and a lot about a little. If a question doesn't attract a good answer, should I answer it with my own sorta-okay answer? (Example: <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/364232/36229">https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/364232/36229</a>) I do my best to be as not-wrong as possible, but is being not-wrong good enough, or should we only answer questions where we can really knock it out of the park, and ignore or close the rest? My opinion is that the former is preferable, but that might be at odds with how others' feel.</p>

<p>Rather than starting on some kind of vigilante rampage through the Close Votes queue -- is there an official position and/or community consensus on "okay, but not that great" answers?</p>
