<p>Question <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/231059/58675">Compare the statistical significance of the difference between two polynomial regressions in R</a> is an obvious duplicate of question <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/140991/58675">Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R</a> (which is an <em>exact</em> duplicate of <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/141011/58675">Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R</a>). Now, as the new question is a duplicate of the other two, one should not answer it, right?</p>

<p>However, the user who posted the new question says that the two old questions have answers that are incomplete or unclear for him, given his level of knowledge of statistics. Question <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/141011/58675">Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R</a> effectively only has an answer which explains why not to use <code>anova</code> in this case (or better, not to naively use <code>anova</code>), but doesn't explain what to do (it suggests AIC, but I agree with the commenter to the answer that that's not the right thing to do). Question <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/140991/58675">Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R</a> has a first comment by user @Roland which in my opinion is great and answers the question correctly. However, it's a comment instead than an answer, and it would seem that the user who posted the new question doesn't understand it. I asked him what he doesn't understand exactly. What would be the right procedure to follow here? Flag the new question as a duplicate and add a more detailed answer, following @Roland's comment? Just flag the new question as a duplicate? Do something else? </p>
