Reading order for a first week here, and what to skip until later — what changed since posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Answering the Reading order question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
First week here. The thing I would tell someone arriving behind me is that the answers are slower and much better than anywhere else I have looked, and that trying to hurry one does not work.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Small correction to my own earlier position on Reading order. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Asking as the newest person in the thread: is there a canonical order to read the documentation set in? I have been going alphabetically and that is clearly not it.
The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
Where the Reading order discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
My position on Reading order is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Reading order has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
Reading the guidelines before you post is genuinely worth the twenty minutes. Not because you will break one, but because the rules explain why the place reads the way it does.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
The reason Reading order is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
The tag pages are usually a better entry point than the categories for a first read. A tag cuts across categories, so following one shows you how the same subject is treated by the analytical people and the practical people at once.
First week here. The thing I would tell someone arriving behind me is that the answers are slower and much better than anywhere else I have looked, and that trying to hurry one does not work.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
Something worth flagging about Reading order: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.