I'm a fan of **linking** to "duplicate" Q & A but not so much of **closing** (= preventing answers) at the same time. This is something I think the SE model *almost* got right, but not quite. In most cases I have encountered, a question is rarely an **exact** duplicate (such that no useful answer to the specific question is possible).

Where the suggested "duplicate" answers the question, the querent may still need **specific guidance** on how to adapt the **general solution** to their particular circumstance. If nothing else, this provides an extra example for future readers.

If something new and interesting arises from the more specific question, the conscientious answer-writer would also update the more general linked Q & A as appropriate.

I would favour a list of "related" Q & A **immediately below the question**, with a short header text to describe its purpose, and to guide people on when local answers should be added (and not).

If something is truly an *exact* duplicate, the link would suffice and no more specific answer need be added. We just shouldn't enforce that with some closure-like restriction.

You can now post an answer which simply links to another answer within the same community:

For example:

```
@@@ answer 620
```

produces:

@@@ answer 620

In some cases an answer linking to another answer and with no other text would be perfectly appropriate. In other cases you can add your own comments as well. In either case, you deserve the credit for discovering the other answer and linking it for the OP's benefit here.

We are hoping this will eventually result in a natural ranking of 'canonical' answers — rather than subjectively tagging them, canonical answers will just be those linked most often.