The [how to spot vampires guide][1] is a nice read (thanks @jokerdino). Interestingly, though, many of the things she proposes against vampires are **not possible in our format or should be used more intensively**. 

For instance,

> Creating resources:
> A FAQ—with real Frequently Asked Questions, not ones which just sound
> likely. And with clearly phrased, actionable (urgh) information for
> each question.

This is a bit **problematic**. On the one hand AU wants to provide canonical answers, on the other hand these answers are mostly navigated via searches and tags. We *could* invest a lot more in wiki pages based on good answers and refer to the wikis in the comments *without* answering the question. This will a) force the vampire to read, b) create an even nicer stack of canonical [pun not intended] information.

Another example:

> Enforce autonomy. No matter how beneficent you’re feeling, never
> directly answer a common question. This is the lazy way out, and you
> only enable the Help Vampires instead of truly helping them. Let the
> URL to your help resources be your only answer, but tell the vamp you
> are happy to help if he explores those avenues of self-help and still
> cannot find an answer.

This is obviously **against our policy** as we not only want the link, but also the essence of the link's content... In other words, vampires are just really part of SE (by the way there are a lot more vampires on SE and SE is not the only Q-A system that has this problem). 

Conclusion: 

 1. If *you* think a question is too easy, just don't answer it! Let low reputation users get easy rep on easy questions. This is *crucial*. High rep users should focus on *difficult* questions and not easy ones. The best people on the hardest tasks.
 2. If a question is answered in the documentation, just don't answer it! Refer to the wikis intensively in comments. Let the wikis rule for easy questions. Learn vampires how to *read*.

  [1]: http://slash7.com/2006/12/22/vampires/