Over the past few months the moderator team has noticed an increase in the number of low-quality flags on answers which don’t add any new information over existing answers. This isn’t what the low-quality flag is meant for, nor is it the proper way to handle answers which don’t contain any new information. We understand the confusion, because [there’s a post from 2012 which says answers like these should be deleted. However, unless the post is a near word for word duplicate of another answer (meaning someone obviously copy/pasted another post) then you shouldn’t just automatically flag the answer, but instead review it on its own merits: .
Is it incorrect? Downvote it (and if it gets enough downvotes, it’ll get kicked into the low quality queue where the community can delete it).
Is it so poorly written to the point you can’t even understand what it’s trying to say? Flag it as low quality.
Is it just kind of mediocre? Don’t flag or vote on it at all, and move on.
Is it well written and correct answer? Upvote it.
Wait, what? Upvote it? Yup, that’s correct. Might seem strange, but keep in mind that just because an answer doesn’t add any new information doesn’t mean it doesn’t add anything of value. A late answer could organize the information in a such a fantastic way that it’s suddenly the best answer there. Maybe it adds graphics, maybe it presents information in a much easier to understand way, or maybe all the other answers just feel like partial answers and this new answer collects all the information in one easy to read post. In situations like this we shouldn’t be deleting or downvoting the post, but upvoting it instead, just like how we now close older questions as duplicates of new ones if the new one is of a lot higher quality. After all, having these awesome (but late) answers showing up near the top of the answers list is in the best interests of everyone, and can only help the site.
So, in conclusion, you should continue to flag ‘exact’, (near word-for-word) duplicates for moderator attention, but if the answer simply covers existing information in a different way, judge it on its own merits, because it’s not a duplicate.