Here for the analytics and not much else posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
There is: the practice category, and the calculators, both written for exactly that. Nothing there assumes chemistry, and the maintained documents show their working so you can check them by hand.
I would call that likely rather than established.
New, no scientific background at all, and slightly intimidated by the first three topics I opened. Is there a sensible on-ramp for someone who is here for practical reasons rather than technical ones?
Worth saying in an introductions thread: reading here counts. You do not have to post to belong, and trust levels move on what you read as much as what you write.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
If you are arriving from somewhere louder, the pace here will feel slow. A topic can sit for two days and then get a reply that is worth the wait. That is the design working.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Community culture: introductions give you a sense of who is here. Reading a few introduces you to the people and the tone of the community.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Following up: if you introduce yourself and someone asks a follow-up question, you can reply here or in a direct message depending on what feels right.
Introducing myself: analytical background, no clinical background, here mostly to read the sourcing and analytics categories. I will ask more than I answer for a while.
No judgment: people come to this community from all backgrounds and with all motivations. Introductions are for getting to know each other, not for evaluation.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Welcome: the response to introductions is usually welcome. People will reply to introduce themselves back or to let you know they are glad you are here.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Introducing myself: analytical background, no clinical background, here mostly to read the sourcing and analytics categories. I will ask more than I answer for a while.
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
Good to have another set of eyes on the wiki posts. Community wiki editing is open at trust level three and the queue of small corrections is permanently longer than the people fixing them.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Welcome. If you have an analytical background you will find the analytics subcategories the easiest place to be useful quickly — the recurring gap here is people who can read a chromatogram, not people who can read a trial.
What to include: your name or handle, how you found the community, what brings you here, maybe something about yourself that seems relevant (clinician, researcher, person using these compounds, curious). Anything you are comfortable sharing.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Good to have you. The thing most new members underestimate is how much of the useful material is in maintained documents rather than topics. Start there and the topics make more sense.
Welcome. The short version of the culture: be specific, date everything, and say when you are guessing. That is genuinely the whole of it.
Glad to see another member from outside the usual regions. The access and regional categories are thin for anywhere that is not the UK, EU or North America, and a dated first-hand account is worth more than any summary.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Six months of lurking, finally posting. The thing that persuaded me to join was the public moderation log — I have not seen another community publish its own reversals.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Welcome from staff. Nothing is required of you here — no posting quota, no introduction, no declaration of background. The only thing we ask is that a claim about a supplier arrives with the evidence attached.
Good to have another set of eyes on the wiki posts. Community wiki editing is open at trust level three and the queue of small corrections is permanently longer than the people fixing them.
Community culture: introductions give you a sense of who is here. Reading a few introduces you to the people and the tone of the community.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
No spam: introductions are not a place to advertise commercial products or services. That is a rules violation.