Nothing here requires expertise. The experienced members here got that way by posting questions, not by knowing the answer before they showed up. If you know something useful, post it. If you do not, ask. Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
Are there stupid questions here? A staff answer, at length — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
Counting it rather than describing it, because the count is the part that can be argued with.
28 instances over 6 weeks, recorded the same way each time, 2 of them different enough from the rest that I have set them aside and said so.
That is the whole dataset. The question in the title is what it does and does not support.
Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.
Your introduction is well framed. You have given enough context that people can actually answer. That is rarer than it sounds and it matters more than it sounds.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Nothing here requires expertise. The experienced members here got that way by posting questions, not by knowing the answer before they showed up. If you know something useful, post it. If you do not, ask.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
The answer to the reading-order question is: the how-to-ask page, then whichever compound page applies to you, then the sourcing standard. Forty minutes and it saves weeks.
It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.
The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Welcome. Two practical notes from staff. Your first few posts are rate-limited, which is an anti-spam measure and not a comment on you, and it lifts on its own. If you hit it and have something to add, edit the post you already made.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
The compound pages are the fastest way to find out whether a question has a published answer at all. If the page says the trial is ongoing, that is the honest state of it and no thread will improve on that.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
The FAQ link in the sidebar is maintained and worth ten hours of forum browsing. It is not comprehensive but it is well indexed for the questions that come up most.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
Worth knowing early: the archive is not retrospectively corrected. A topic from two years ago was accurate when written and may not be now. Every post carries its date for that reason.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
The answer to the reading-order question is: the how-to-ask page, then whichever compound page applies to you, then the sourcing standard. Forty minutes and it saves weeks.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
If you want a fast orientation, read three solved topics in the subcategory you care about. Solved means somebody said the answer worked, which is more signal than reply count.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
The compound pages are the fastest way to find out whether a question has a published answer at all. If the page says the trial is ongoing, that is the honest state of it and no thread will improve on that.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.