I've struggled to learn the game, Puerto Rico, and several hours of "cramming" the various posts over the internet may have hurt, rather than helped.
As a learning tool, I tried to answer my own question from two years ago. What Makes Buildings Valuable In Puerto Rico?
The key point of my answer (which I got only after several tries), was:
"But large buildings interact with other buildings or other factors, to offer additional VPs. For instance, a guild hall offers four VPs and a large indigo plant two VPs. But if you own them together, you earn an extra VP for owning the guild hall plus the indigo plant (a production building). That's a total of seven instead of six VPs."
That, to me, addressed the key point of the question (about "interaction" effects), that the other, mostly excellent answer, had left out.
It's true that the earlier versions were less clear. But the criticism from one particular user began as follows:
"are you trying to pollute BG.SE with poor quality questions and answers... Providing lots of low quality questions/answers is a very slow way to build up reputation."
In the "..." was a more conventional critique about how this post was downvoted because it was redundant, factually incorrect, etc.
As I understand it, the purpose of commenting and downvoting is to point out errors, and encourage the OP to improve. That's something I welcome because I have an honest interest in learning the game. I did my best to improve that, and other posts critiqued by this user.
But was the first part of the critique using "pollute" appropriate for the site? It seems overly harsh to me.