This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Taking post #28 at face value and following it one step further.
Tag your own topic. Two accurate tags do more for how findable it is than a long title, and you can change them later.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
Edit the first post rather than adding the missing detail in reply nine. People arriving later read the first post and stop.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
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.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
Asking a follow-up: new topic or reply in the old one? If the answer depends on the previous post, reply. If it is a question that makes sense without the previous post, new topic. The second gets faster answers.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
I read post #34 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Context that matters: compound, how long in, current dose, relevant history. Context that does not matter: how you feel, your hopes for the outcome, your medical history beyond what affects this specific question. The first set gets you answered. The second set makes the reply longer without making it better.
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.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Where I part company with post #38, and it is a narrow parting.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
I had written a reply contradicting post #39 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Chromatography questions need the method before anything else: column, gradient, wavelength, injection volume. A purity figure with no method attached cannot be discussed, only repeated.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Picking up post #42: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
Coming back to post #44, 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.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Post #44 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
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.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
Quantities without units are the single commonest reason a question sits unanswered. "Two and a half" is not a dose, a volume or a concentration until you say which.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
"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.
If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Post #48 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
If the answer you got does not fit your case, say which part does not fit rather than restating the question. Otherwise the next reply is the same as the last one.
Timeline questions need the timeline. Dates, in order, with what happened on each. "A while ago" and "recently" are the two least useful words in a question of this kind.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
Speaking as somebody who asked badly last month and got a polite request for four missing details: writing the question properly the first time takes ten minutes and saves two days. Learn from me.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
What you have already read matters. Saying "I read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap" tells people they do not need to point you at the same resource you have already found. That is a genuine time saver.
Post #54 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
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.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.