The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold?

The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people here always have to ask for.

What I have already read: the relevant maintained document, the two topics it links to, and the tag page. What I could not find is the specific case I am in, which may simply mean it is uncommon.

I am happy to be told this is answered elsewhere if someone can point at where.

Avoid "any advice?" at the end. It is so generic that people do not know which part of the post it refers to. Pick the specific part and ask that specific question instead.

The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

The specific question in the title is more useful than you might think. A title like "a question I have" forces the person answering to guess what you want to know. A title with the actual question gets you an answer in two hours instead of two days.

Coming back to post #2, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

I have left out the parts I could not verify.

Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.

Questions you cannot explain: "I cannot say why I am asking this, but is this compound stable at room temperature?" is more productive than no question at all. People here know that some questions cannot be asked in public and they will work with that constraint.

Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

A question about somebody else's post should be a reply to that post, not a new topic. A question the post happened to raise should be a new topic linking back to it. The difference is whether the answer is useful without the original.

Adding the measurement that post #8 says would settle it.

Post the arithmetic you already did. Half the questions here are answered by someone spotting which line of your working is wrong, and that is impossible if you only give the answer you got.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

Five questions in one post gets you one answer: the easiest one, usually not the one you needed most. Post them separately or pick the one that depends on the others least and ask that one first.

I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

"Has anyone had this happen" gets you anecdotes. "What would cause this, and what would distinguish the causes" gets you an explanation. The second question is almost always the one you wanted.

Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.

I had written a reply contradicting post #9 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

It is fine to say you cannot explain why you are asking. Nobody will press, and the technical part of the question can usually be answered without the context.

Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.