user254: We have liberal policies about accepting questions (of any quality) ... but what about answers?
I noticed that Hugh was posting comments in this topic -- and I was wondering whether I can recommend posting that kind of comments, as a way to improve the quality of answers?

user254: I think they're good comments: and, I commend the desire or attempt to improve the quality of answers; and I wouldn't mind seeing more participation (from Hugh or others) like that.

Beware that sometimes comments can be done badly, for example:

"You're wrong!"
"Your whole school of Buddhism is wrong!"

Two of the things I like about these specific comments of Hugh's:

They're specific (about what's wrong) and prescriptive (about how to improve it)
They're posted to benefit the OP, to try to ensure that answers fully address the OP's question.


Apart from benefiting the OP, it's also proper to post a comment if you don't understand the answer:

"I didn't understand this bit of your answer, could you clarify that?"
"Could you post a reference, where I might read more about what you wrote?"

If you think that an answer should be better, it's also proper to try to a post a better answer.

The one slight criticism that I have of Hugh's comments is that they impute a motive, e.g.:

you care more about making sure that Buddhism is compatible with science instead of answering OP's doubts

I don't mind writing "you" conventionally, but I avoid writing "you" when I'm writing criticism.

254: <p>We have <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1558/254">liberal policies about accepting questions</a> (of any quality) ... but what about answers?</p>

<p>I noticed that Hugh was posting comments <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/19695/254">in this topic</a> -- and I was wondering whether I can recommend posting that kind of comments, as a way to improve the quality of answers?</p>
 254: <p>I think they're good comments: and, I commend the desire or attempt to improve the quality of answers; and I wouldn't mind seeing more participation (from Hugh or others) like that.</p>

<hr>

<p>Beware that sometimes comments can be done badly, for example:</p>

<ul>
<li>"You're wrong!"</li>
<li>"Your whole school of Buddhism is wrong!"</li>
</ul>

<p>Two of the things I like about <em>these</em> specific comments of Hugh's:</p>

<ul>
<li>They're specific (about what's wrong) and prescriptive (about how to improve it)</li>
<li>They're posted to benefit the OP, to try to ensure that answers fully address the OP's question.</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>Apart from benefiting the OP, it's also proper to post a comment if <em>you</em> don't understand the answer:</p>

<ul>
<li>"I didn't understand <em>this bit</em> of your answer, could you clarify that?"</li>
<li>"Could you post a reference, where I might read more about what you wrote?"</li>
</ul>

<p>If you think that an answer should be better, it's also proper to try to a post a better answer.</p>

<hr>

<p>The one slight criticism that I have of Hugh's comments is that they impute a motive, e.g.:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>you</em> care more about making sure that Buddhism is compatible with science instead of answering OP's doubts</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't mind writing "you" conventionally, but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message" rel="nofollow noreferrer">I avoid writing "you"</a> when I'm writing criticism.</p>
