Should I elaborate a low quality answer or should I post a new one?

Question

This question is wired to the topic: When to add another answer instead of updating my current one? - but is slightly different. Here is the story:

A few days ago I created an answer that provides a complete working solution to the question: How to Change the display scaling on the fly? Another answer was posted and accepted. I liked the idea. The suggested approach looks really light and I've already tested it. It works nicely, but the answer is low quality.

So, I want to write a comprehensive answer, but I can't make a decision about the inner question: Should I edit the low quality answer and allow the lazy author of the accepted answer to get the benefits of my effort, or should I create a separate answer? What should be the principal decision model in cases such as this one?

Answer 1

This question reminds me of this answer by terdon to a somewhat related question.

I read that answer when I was new to the site, and it influenced my approach to participating in Ask Ubuntu. At the time that answer was posted, I was transitioning from enjoying the site casually to feeling a sort of loving responsibility for its awesomeness.

It's really up to you whether you add a new answer or improve a basic answer that lacks details. Many details of the case might influence your decision. If the answer is accepted, for example, it ought to be a good one, I think, because people will see it first.

In general there's a tendency on Stack Exchange to avoid duplication of content. We often delete new answers that replicate old ones without adding anything useful. One good, comprehensive answer is less time-consuming to parse than one half-answer and one good, comprehensive answer that contains the information missing from the half-answer.

So, if you are feeling community-minded, you might feel that editing the answer to include the details it's missing is the extra nice and selfless thing to do...