This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Confirming post #120 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
I had written a reply contradicting post #122 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Staff note on titles, since it comes up. We retitle topics fairly often, always leaving the original in the first post and always logging it. It is not a criticism of the wording — it is that a title is how somebody finds this in eighteen months.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
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.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
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.
A weak preference rather than a position.
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
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.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
The most useful reply I ever got about titles was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
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.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
Narrowing post #133, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
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.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
On titles I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
I read post #133 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Chromatogram questions: describe the method first. Column type, gradient, wavelength, detection method. Everything else follows from method. A chromatogram without method is a number without context.
Post #137 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Post #137 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Building on post #140 rather than restating it.
I have been on both sides of the titles argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Post #142 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The thing about titles that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
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.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
"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.
Post #145 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
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.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
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.