<p>The first answer here by @User1865345 is excellent, and I agree with it all. It has the merit that it applies not just to the specific question originally raised by the OP. but also to many others.</p>
<p>Here is another take that is also very general. It's hard for anyone new to a field to imagine that they are answering their own question -- they wouldn't be asking if they could! -- but you can try some role reversal. One way to do that is to think of any topic on which you are well informed, something you've studied in depth, a sport or hobby that is a major part of your life, your views on politics, or your home town. All of a sudden an alien speaking English appears asking several loosely linked questions on that topic. In your role reversal, consider</p>
<p><strong>How long would the ideal answer to those linked questions be?</strong></p>
<p><strong>How long would it take even an expert to write it?</strong></p>
<p>In turn, here are my personal takes on those simple but crucial points.</p>
<p>If I answer a question, it is necessary that I think I can answer it with a few minutes' work. I have to think that, even if I am fooling myself, and in practice I will spend more because I enjoy answering, think I have something to say, and work on giving a good balance of principle and example. But if I think there are too many questions being asked, I back off and vote to close even if I think I understand the questions. <strong>People answering have to think that it is possible to write a good reply fairly quickly.</strong></p>
<p>Comments on how long an answer might be boil down to the same point. <strong>If you seem to be asking for the equivalent of a review paper or book chapter, it is unlikely that anyone wants to spend time posting that on SE.</strong></p>
<p>There aren't absolute rules on this. Sometimes people do write impressively authoritative, comprehensive and detailed answers, but that is less likely if a thread starts with a series of loosely linked questions.</p>
