This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Confirming post #90 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Say what you want out of the answer. "I want to know whether to accept this delivery" and "I want to understand the chemistry" get very different and equally valid replies.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
I had written a reply contradicting post #90 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Units. Everything needs units. This is why we ask every single time. I have seen the same arithmetic done three different ways depending on whether the person was thinking mg/mL or mg/dose or something else entirely. Stating the units makes that impossible.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
Post #92 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
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.
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.
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.
This follows post #98 rather than contradicting it.
Say what you have already ruled out. "It is not the diluent because I tried a second vial from a different box" saves three replies suggesting the diluent.
"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.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
I read post #100 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
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.
If you are asking about a document, quote the exact wording of the line you are asking about. Paraphrasing a specification is how a discussion ends up about a document nobody has read.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Narrowing post #106, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
Edit the first post rather than adding the missing detail in reply nine. People arriving later read the first post and stop.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
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.
I read post #111 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
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.
Building on post #115 rather than restating it.
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.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Number your questions if there is more than one. It sounds fussy. It means the answer can be numbered back, and you find out which one nobody addressed.
On post #115 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
Picking up post #119: that is the part I would want checked first.
Disagreeing with an answer you got: cite what you disagree with, say what contradicts it, and ask which one holds. Do not open with "I think you are wrong". Lead with the evidence.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.