I've had my eye on this question for a while: How long is Mass Effect 3 on normal difficulty?
I didn't think it was a very good question, but I answered it and pointed to HowLongToBeat.com and tried to explain in my answer specifically why a site like this is needed to provide a good answer to the question. I was hoping it would avoid a bunch of one-off answers saying "Here's how long it took me."
Well, as you can see, my approach failed. Even after getting the site that points to the average marked as accepted, we still receive "It took me X hours" answers. At best they serve as our own form of average-gathering, as someone could read all the answers and determine their own average from them. Which seems like a pretty poor way to use our Q&A format.
Then I noticed we've got the tag completion-time. I browsed through a bunch of these and most of them have the same problem... either they point at the same website I did, which actually collects averages and is suited to providing a good answer, or they have some "Well, here's now long it took me" answers which are of dubious quality at best. If I'm asking this question, how can I as the asker possibly decide which of these types of answers is the "true" completion time? Bob said it took 15 hours, but Tim said it took 20. There's no way for me to accept one over the other. An answer that discusses averages is the only one that can even approach being useful and correct.
At that point, though, all of these types of questions boil down to a single answer, "Go check HowLongToBeat.com".
Is there anything we can do to help out with the generally low-quality of these questions and answers?