Because this site follows a Q/A model, all answers should add something new to the question. The answers you linked to don't.
A answer in the same language that's shorter than a previously posted one will often earn my upvote—especially in a popular language like Python. This indicates that the second poster found something that the first poster overlooked. It adds to the site because it's shorter, and that's what we're about.
An answer that is longer but uses a creative approach will sometimes earn my upvote. In my opinion, when posting a longer answer, it's polite to link to the shorter answer as I did here (actually, in that challenge my longer answer was first, but no matter).
However, an answer that is slower, longer, and straightforward to find should not be valued on PCG. Post it if you want to, but don't expect votes.
FGITW is defined here:
Each question's answers are sorted by descending score and then by descending time of posting. This means that if a person sits down and answers a question in a long, thorough way, going through every nook and cranny, once they post their answer, it will already be one of about seven different ones, some of which have already been upmodded. This wouldn't be a problem if those answers were as thorough as the one this guy's posting, but they usually aren't. Some of them are downright wrong, some aren't even answers to the question asked because their poster didn't bother to read the question all the way through.
FGITW is a problem when slower, better answers don't get the votes they deserve. In code-golf challenges, the quality of answers is based on their length, creativity, and (if necessary) explanation. Your answers were not shorter, and in my opinion they weren't creative; therefore, FGITW does not apply.