Quite easily actually.
I'll be the first to call this sort of reasoning out. Upvotes do not a good answer make (nor a good question tbh). Whether or not something is popular should not determine whether or not it gets moderated. If the question is deserving we can let the answers lay. if we look at the answers on this question alone, my answer mostly has the advantage of having been first, your answer is actually far more detailed and probably answers the question more directly. Votes aren't the only nor really the best judge of quality.
That said, on this particular question, I think our moderators have made a mistake. We've known about most of what makes 5e special for close to a year now. Advantage/Disadvantage has been a part of the system since the first moments of the playtest. Bounded Accuracy has been in conceptual development for a while. The emphasis on the 3 pillars has been a design goal from day one. The only truly new standout feature in the basic rules is Inspiration which is covered in a couple of the answers.
That said, I don't think any of the answers are truly bad. One could argue that the answer at -3 was bad..though mostly it lacks sufficient details to be a good answer. Of the remaning 3 answers, one is pretty general, not calling out anything specific. Another is my answers which addresses some key areas of import (new things since 4e really, things that stand out to a reader, which I think was the intent to the question). Finally there is your answer, which is quite detailed, clearly informed by hours of play and probably the best of the bunch.
I disagree with the evaluation that this question was attracting bad answers. It's attracted 4 answers, only one of which could be classified as bad and then only if you're a bit more expansive of the definition of bad than I'm generally willing to go.
Are the answers incomplete? perhaps? We'll know a lot more when the full system is released by the end of the year. However, as with the playtest, we should be able to answer these completely with the information we currently have available.
Some of the comments are asking about whether or not it's too early to create definitive answers on this when we haven't had time to play this. I'd have to say as GMNoob points out, several people on this site have been actively involved in the playtest. GMNoob has been playing for close to a year, another of our members is DMing the current season of Encounters which uses the playtest and I've run several games of the Next playtest. While there are some changes, D&D Basic is not significantly different than the last playtest packet released. The core mechanics and design ideals are there, advantage/disadvantage and bounded accuracy are at the forefront of this. The only truly new element in this playtest packet was the Inspiration mechanic which 2/4 of the answers here cover. While we may not have experience playing with the mechanic directly, I don't think it's out of line to project how it's going to work at our own tables.