Question: [This question about the sun's circumference](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/68120/how-is-suns-equatorial-circumference-measured/68125#68125), I answered with what I *thought* was a helpful answer - it seems that a couple of others found it useful (2 upvotes), but I am getting grief about the answer being "while strictly correct, but is enormously unsatisfying".

Why not then, if an answer is "enormously unsatisfying", post n alternative answer?

What have I done wrong this time?

Answer: 
I guess the unsatisfying bit is the inclusion of "Distance from Earth to the Sun" in the formula.

I agree that the question is a bit unclear in this aspect; I think it's trying to ask "how was the Sun's diameter *first* measured". From this point of view, talking about the E-S distance just raises another question "how was the E-S distance calculated?"

To make a rough analogy1, this is similar to being asked "How can I calculate the circumference of the Earth", and answering "Multiply the diameter by $\pi$". Again, this is strictly correct, but not really satisfying.

1. I've tried to make the issue clearer in this analogy by exaggerating the situation. I've found that folks sometimes easily get offended by such exaggerated analogies, so I'm just mentioning that I don't mean to offend here :)
> 
> What have I done wrong this time?
> 
> 
> 

Initially being too sensitive to fair, constructive criticisim of your answer, that replaced one measurement with another, without explaining how the new measurement was to be carried out.

What did you do right?

Taking on board the criticism in the comments and improving the answer.