My question is: Generally, when there is a minor disconnect between the question title and the question body, is it okay to infer intent from the body of the question, or should the literal interpretation of the question title take precedence?
In a question I recently answered, I was informed in a comment that:
The correct course of action when presented with a poorly delineated single word request is never to guess at an answer. This is a misuse of the site. // An answer is incorrect if it doesn't answer the question as written, not as might possibly have been intended.
I understand the point: The question holds useful information for future users of the site seeking answers. If the answer does not address the question as asked, the utility of both the question and answer is diminished.
In this particular discussion, the question was originally titled:
Looking for a word that means something that used to be unique but is now so commonplace it is no longer noticed
After some reflection, I reasoned that "the question as written" is aimed at the word means in the title. I then believe the comment asserts that a correct answer would have to provide a word that connotes used to be unique.
However, when I first answered the question, I did not take means in the literal sense. Since the body of the question post made no other mention of previous uniqueness, I reasoned the intent was that the requested word should be applicable in such a situation. I think this was the initial disconnect I had between the quoted comment and my answer.
I have since edited the title removing the word means, although leaving in "used to be unique". This still makes the comments objecting to the answers still relevant, while loosening the constraint in the original title.