The listed related discussions show that answers should contain more than a link to the software and a general description. I understand that's an important requirement to assure that answers are high quality.
However, I think it should also be possible for people to respond* to a question without writing an answer that meets these quality standards. For example, this would be the case when someone knows of software that might fit the requirements of the question, but doesn't have real experience with the software (and thus can't write a high quality answer).
One view would be that these responses provide very few information. Another view would be that these responses can still be helpful, as the mentioned software might be of help.
Ideally these responses could be turned in to high quality answers, either by someone already using the software, or the user that asked the question, if he/she decided to try the software.
Something to consider might be that some users might mainly be posting minimal responses, without posting actual high quality answers to the website.
The questions to discuss here would be:
- Do we want to allow responses* that only link to software?
- How should these responses be given (as comments to the question, or answers)?
- How should we encourage people to turn these responses into high quality answers?
- Do we want to discourage people from mainly posting minimal responses? If so, how?
*Responses do not have to be actual answers per se. However, I'm not sure what they actually should be.
Here's a situation I consider to be an example for this:
I'm looking for a web application that tracks changes on websites and provide them as RSS feeds. The detection of site / site-part structure can be semi-automatic, but should not be too time-consuming.
Take a look at kimono. Their 1-minute video shows how you can create a feed from any website in a few clicks. They offer a free package; paid packages start at $15/month. Unfortunately I haven't tried their service yet, but from what I've seen (the video mainly) it seems really amazing.
My answer was removed because it doesn't contain enough information. I understand that and I agree with that. However, I believe the link to software could be of help, so in some way removing it was a loss.