Kata

This is a simple kata by design

This is not a reason to spam duplicates. And yes, your kata is a duplicate of this task - not identical but close enough.

This is not spamming duplicates. This kata was written in October 2017, when there were only a handful of R kata on codewars. The task is particular to the structure of objects in R, which is why I did not translate it. I brought it up in gitter before creating it, and whether this was of benefit was discussed. The consensus was that adding this to the available R kata was beneficial.

This kata was written when there were only a handful of R kata. The task is particular to the structure of objects in R.

Then you should have done something more R-specific than "filter out any strings which are shorter than the longest string in the vector" which can be solved just as easy in almost any other language which CW supports - sorry, but your point makes no sense.

The consensus was that adding this to the available R kata was beneficial

Then those people are bad people, and you should not listen to them. Like it or not, but my point still stands: this kata is the same as this kata (unless you're going to say that a trivial for loop and an if statement are a game-changer, but that would mean justifying the creation of "new" katas by adding zero meaningful requirements to make it "different" from something we already have; and you wouldn't do something that dumb, would you?).

I'm not sure what "more R-specific" would mean. I could write something more complex, and I have. This particular kata, however, has a couple of specific, simple learning objectives. It was not written to "make it different" from the other kata (which I don't believe was even out of beta when I wrote this kata), but to demonstrate some fundamental concepts about the R language. The proposed duplicate does not require any demonstration of how to subset a vector, which is one of the two learning objectives here. Since I think there is utility in having an even simpler kata, an R translation there could be proposed and would add something to the available R kata as well. I invite you to do that if you'd like. Considering we still have fewer than 300 R kata available, I think that would be productive. It seems we have a disagreement about the value of having a range of kata, from the simple to the complex. I understand your point of view, but I strongly disagree with it.