Adding a null result on asking a follow-up. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
14 likes 28d
Start Here · How to Ask · continued
Asking a follow-up: new topic or new reply? posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
micrograms, post #22: 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. Go to post
Picking up post #31: that is the part I would want checked first.
Asking a follow-up would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
I had written a reply contradicting post #31 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
0 likes 27d
The strongest argument against my own position on asking a follow-up, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
28 likes 26d
s.roos, post #29: 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. Go to post
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
s.beaulieu, post #6: 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. Go to post
Post #35 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Edit the first post rather than adding the missing detail in reply nine. People arriving later read the first post and stop.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
13 likes 22d
Narrowing post #40, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
24 likes 21d
a.sorensen, post #10: 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… Go to post
Small methodological point on asking a follow-up: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
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.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
32 likes 19d
Tag your own topic. Two accurate tags do more for how findable it is than a long title, and you can change them later.
0 likes 18d
a.jansen, post #16: Tag your own topic. Two accurate tags do more for how findable it is than a long title, and you can change them later. Go to post
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
r.chukwu, post #49: Careful with the language on asking a follow-up. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method. Go to post
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.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
k.batista, post #39: Post #35 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction. 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. Worth saying I have only my own numbers here,… Go to post
Adding the measurement that post #49 says would settle it.
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.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
1 like 14d
g.haaland, post #5: 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. Go to post
Answering the question post #54 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The arithmetic in post #54 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The bit of asking a follow-up that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
3 likes 11d
np_gilmore, post #11: Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it. Go to post
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to asking a follow-up: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
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.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
15 likes 9d