<p>I'll note that the post you point to is </p>

<p>(i) not all that long</p>

<p>(ii) already well upvoted (including by me; indeed given the active voters and the active meta participants have a big overlap, that's probably true of several people participating in the discussion)</p>

<p>so I think you can take the broader community response as positive already.</p>

<p>But for my two cents</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I think long answers (longer than that one) are usually fine. Answers with a pedagogical slant are fine; people are often looking for expositions that will convey understanding, not just an 'answer'. My favourite answers here that I have seen from others are slightly longer ones that undertake to convey understanding. That's not to say that it's not possible to convey understanding succinctly - I've seen great short answers - but that people understand things differently. Sometimes a little more discussion, or a diagram, or an outline of how a result comes about, or some general explanation to help with intuition helps people that won't see it from the shortest answers.</p></li>
<li><p>Questions and answers are supposed to help future readers, not just the OP - so making your responses more general than a direct answer to the question is often a good thing. There are sometimes important points and fascinating ideas that are closely related to the question, but that the OP hasn't the knowledge to even know to ask. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Added in edit: your question asks 'should I?' ... but outside general guidance I don't think it's up to us to tell you how best to answer a question outside of what the rules cover (e.g. avoid 'one sentence' answers, avoid link-only answers, and so on) -- one good aspect of CV is the different approaches people bring. There are often several good contributions, some short, some long.</p>
