This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Answering the question post #29 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Post #33 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Disagreement-style questions: "I read this and it contradicts what I heard here, which is right?" is answerable. "Is this a bad idea?" without giving the context is not.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Everything in post #33 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.
Narrowing post #33, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Chromatography questions need the method before anything else: column, gradient, wavelength, injection volume. A purity figure with no method attached cannot be discussed, only repeated.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
The specific question in the title is more useful than you might think. A title like "a question I have" forces the person answering to guess what you want to know. A title with the actual question gets you an answer in two hours instead of two days.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
Picking up post #37: that is the part I would want checked first.
Five questions is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Adding the measurement that post #38 says would settle 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.
Post #40 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
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.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
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.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Five questions is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
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 matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing 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.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
This follows post #51 rather than contradicting it.
When you quote a figure from somewhere else, say where from. Not as a formality — the answer frequently depends on whether the number came from a certificate, an independent report or a forum post.
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.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
Taking post #55 at face value and following it one step further.
Reporting rather than recommending, on five questions. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
I read post #55 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Disagreement-style questions: "I read this and it contradicts what I heard here, which is right?" is answerable. "Is this a bad idea?" without giving the context is not.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
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.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.