This weekend a question got asked about exploratory analysis and p-hacking:
This is a broad topic to begin with and the question — in my opinion — is too long and lacks clarity. However, it's also an important and interesting topic, so instead of "Needs more focus" I voted to close and found threads that discuss the topic with eloquence and pointers to further resources, etc. I can only suggest one duplicate but in a comment to the question I linked to 5 (near) duplicates as it's hard to find close duplicates for a question that asks many sub-questions.
Today the question has been re-opened. This is fine by me. It's possible that I misjudged the qualities of the question.
However, I would like to ask for some practical advice on how to calibrate my understanding of what "needs more focus" and "is a duplicate" and esp. at the intersection of these two cases. Searching for duplicates takes time and often it seems easier to write a new answer than to look for great existing answers.
Related meta threads:
I'm not sure they address this case because the examples seem to be short questions with more obvious duplicates.