Coming back to post #2, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. I would be cautious about generalising from the asking a follow-up example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Asking a follow-up: new topic or new reply? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
Collecting what is known about asking a follow-up in one place, because it is currently spread across a category, two tag pages and a thread that is hard to find.
This is a summary rather than new work, and I have attributed each part to where I found it.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Coming back to post #2, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
I would be cautious about generalising from the asking a follow-up example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Taking post #4 at face value and following it one step further.
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 deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
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.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Post #6 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
Adding the measurement that post #9 says would settle it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
The number people quote for asking a follow-up is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
Reading this asking a follow-up thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
Edit the first post rather than adding the missing detail in reply nine. People arriving later read the first post and stop.
Coming back to post #13, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The version of asking a follow-up that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
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.
Picking up post #18: that is the part I would want checked first.
Asking a follow-up is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
The reason asking a follow-up keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
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.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
This follows post #22 rather than contradicting it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
Worth separating two things that post #24 runs together.
Agreed on asking a follow-up, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Two people in this thread mean different things by asking a follow-up and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
The question underneath asking a follow-up is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Post #28 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.