Many times I find myself with relevant, sourced information when I look at a question, but won't have a complete answer. For example, in this recent question, the question asked for when large-scale slaughterhouses became common practice, and rabbinical positions for and against them. I know exactly one thing about that, which is the source I linked to in my answer explaining how certain practices of large-scale slaughter worked halachically (based on a comparison to Erev Yom Kipuur). This is not a complete answer by itself, but it's certainly relevant to the question.*
I'm not the only one with this issue: see, for example, here and here.

So my Meta question is -- in a situation like that, is it better to:

  1. Post an answer with just the information I have.
  2. Post an answer with the disclaimer that it is incomplete. (which is what I have been doing)
  3. Post a comment with the information that I have.
  4. Something else?
    *Other answers where I have done this include but may not be limited to here here and here.

In my opinion, whether the asker delineated parts to his question (1. Why is this done? 2. How long has it been done? ― Answer: So-and-so says it's done because of such-and-such.) or not (What's the custom? ― Answer: The Ashkenazic custom is such-and-such.) it's fine as an answer and needn't be a comment. And it should be worded so readers aren't confused: so they know it's a partial answer.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .