So, per Stack Overflow rules, comments are really something that are supposed to be discouraged in many circumstances that we use them. They are "sticky notes" designed to suggest improvements to an answer, and most importantly, are not indexed by Google. And, as we all know, if it's not googleable, it's irrelevant :)
In theory, we're not supposed to be using them to answer - but let's face it, sometimes an answer doesn't really deserve to be scored as one. Or, sometimes we want to take the coward's way out, and leave the information, but not take the dread -2s that mess up our nice round zeros and fives...
Sometimes there is valuable input to be made that is more than a comment, but less than a full answer. For example, if a question is missing a step to get it to an answerable level, it's useful to post it.
Today, this happened twice to me:
According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God? - the question begged for a greater fleshing out of the age of accountability - but I had neither the full answer, nor a desire to edit a good standalone question too far from OP's intent.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15099/does-any-other-faith-besides-catholicism-dogmatically-assert-a-kind-of-time-trav - here again, I feel like I added value by bringing in a discussion of the communion of the saints and its understanding - but I'm not sure that I actually had the ability to conclusively answer across denominations.
My question (and this is fuzzy), then is this: Are partial answers - or answers that move the question forward but explicitly don't answer it - desirable? Put another way - if I want to be lazy, is it better to contribute something less than an answer, or keep my [mouth | fingers] shut?
What should one do in a situation where the important info can be added, but that in and of itself is not the end state of the question?