A recurring question on physics.stackexchange is "how do I understand gyroscopic precession?" The actual question may take many different forms, but the underlying problem is always that gyroscopic precession seems very counter-intuitive, and what the people are looking for is an explanation that removes the counter-intuitive appearance.
Back in 2012 I posted a discussion of gyroscopic precesssion
Here is what I would like to do:
Keep an eye on new questions, and when a question is posted that is once again effectively asking "how do I understand gyroscopic precession?" I'd like to add a link to my 2012 answer.
My question is:
Would that be considered to be a form of vanity linking? I'm eager to help people understand gyroscopic precession, but I don't want end up in a position where I'm suspected of vanity linking.
Would it be considered bad form if I look up existing questions to add a link to my 2012 discussion?
Maybe I should have mentioned: over the years my answer (out of seven answers) on that page has accumulated 11 upvotes, the second most upvoted has 3 upvotes. (Yeah, tiny numbers, but still.) I'm convinced my discussion is helpful; the upvotes do seem to corroborate that.