Titles that describe the question, not the situation posts 31–60

Reframing titles slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.

Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.

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.

Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.

Post #45 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

The documentation on titles is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.

Post #45 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.

It took me longer than it should have to see that.

Adding the measurement that post #49 says would settle it.

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.

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.

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

This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.

Confirming post #51 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Source for the titles figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.

Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.

I had written a reply contradicting post #50 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

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

Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.

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.

On post #54 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

Post #56 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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

It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.

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.

Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.

Narrowing post #56, because the general version has more than one answer.

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.

I changed my mind about titles after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.