<p>Merely discussing more than one method doesn't really justify posting a separate answer for each, especially as a great answer would compare &amp; contrast them. There isn't usually much sense in seeing votes as measuring the relative popularity of different methods.</p>

<p>As an example see <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/68917/17230">https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/68917/17230</a>. The compare &amp; contrast aspect is admittedly rather meagre: but it's there, &amp; constitutes such merit as the answer has; &amp; surely a better answer is going to go into more detail about the suitability of the different methods for different methods, &amp; the relationships between them, rather than give some eighth method that trumps the seven already listed. What'd be the use of splitting this into seven answers so that people can vote up their favourites?</p>

<p>If, for example, on occasion, you wanted to make all the arguments for a point of view in one answer, &amp; the arguments against it in another; I'm sure no-one would mind, &amp; perhaps it'd be rather fun. So I wouldn't say multiple answers were unacceptable; but they should be exceptions, for some particular purpose, &amp; not just because you've got more than one thing to say (which is the case for many, if not most, answers).</p>

<p>[Note also that in this case your second answer is just a reference, which would be better as a comment anyway unless you intended to expand it.]</p>

<hr>

<p>As @Glen_b &amp; @kenorb have pointed out, the highly upvoted <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/25210/225179">answer to What is the official etiquette on answering a question twice?</a> says:&mdash;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When you have two distinct answers, it's better to post two different answers than to put them both into one answer.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think this begs the question. <em>Of course</em> two different answers should be distinct: but you don't just <em>have</em> answers; is it better or not to write a single comprehensive answer? For the reasons above I say it's normally better.</p>

<p>Some comments on that answer are interesting: <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25209#comment809593_25210">one</a> from a moderator on <a href="http://cooking.stackexchange.com">Seasoned Advice</a>:&mdash;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[...] in general we definitely don't want multiple answers on cooking.
  Yes, there are often a lot of facets or different ideas, but they're
  also often all connected, so it doesn't really make sense to split
  them up. It's much more useful to readers to have things presented in
  context in a well-organized way. It's also often true that the
  multiple parts of an answer aren't better or worse than each other,
  but simply different and all useful.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>&amp; <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/25209/#comment578216_25210">another</a> from a Stack Overflow user:&mdash;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[...] from my understanding of SO, multiple answers lead to confusion
  since as both answerer and asker, I expect the solution that worked to
  be accepted, the act being proof that it did, even in (so often) cases
  when from the question it's not clear (yet?) which one is most
  relevant.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Statistics must be more like cooking than programming.</p>
