Sometimes, [proof-verification](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/proof-verification "show questions tagged 'proof-verification'") questions ask for verification of a valid and overall solid proof (some examples: [What is the $\dim L(X,Y)$?](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1210098/what-is-the-dim-lx-y), [Prove $(\overline{A \cap B}) \subseteq \overline{A} \cap \overline{B}$.](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1149655/prove-overlinea-cap-b-subseteq-overlinea-cap-overlineb), [If $f\_n(t):=f(t^n)$ converges uniformly to continuous function then $f$ constant](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/877306/if-f-nt-ftn-converges-uniformly-to-continuous-function-then-f-constant)).

Standard behaviour seems to leave a comment similar to “yes, looks good to me.”. (See the above examples.)

In my opinion, this is not a good practice. First, [comments are, in theory, ephemeral](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130975/are-comments-ephemeral-and-what-should-be-done-with-informative-comments), and second, these questions still appear to be [unanswered](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/proof-verification?sort=unanswered).

I think the best way to handle this would be to answer “yes, your proof is correct.” as a community wiki answer (thus allowing other users to add minor improvement suggestions).

Related:
<http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/16355/is-it-inappropriate-to-turn-a-proof-verification-question-into-a-self-answered-q> and <http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4597/best-way-of-asking-check-my-proof-questions>, where it is suggested for the OP of the question to add a community wiki answer.