This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Confirming post #61 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Post #61 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
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.
Coming back to post #61, 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.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Do not apologise in the first line. It costs you the space where the question should be, and nobody here thinks a question is an imposition.
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.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Building on post #68 rather than restating it.
"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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Post #72 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Tag your own topic. Two accurate tags do more for how findable it is than a long title, and you can change them later.
Where I part company with post #74, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
A weak preference rather than a position.
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.
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.
One case, stated as one case.
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
Worth separating two things that post #79 runs together.
Nobody minds being asked to explain a term. The people who use them most are the quickest to define them, and a question that stops to ask is usually a question that gets a better answer.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
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.
Confirming post #83 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
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.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
If your question has a deadline — a parcel in transit, a delivery you have to accept or refuse — say so. People answer differently when there is a clock on it.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.