Confirming post #8 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. 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…
How to disagree with an answer you were given, well — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
Question in the title and the context underneath, in the order the how-to-ask page suggests.
What I have read: the maintained document, the two topics it links, and the tag page. What I could not find is my specific case, which may simply mean it is uncommon.
Happy to be pointed at an existing answer if there is one.
Narrowing the opening post, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it.
Everything in post #2 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.
Say what you want out of the answer. "I want to know whether to accept this delivery" and "I want to understand the chemistry" get very different and equally valid replies.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Answering the question post #7 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Confirming post #8 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
That is all I can say without guessing.
I had written a reply contradicting post #7 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
The arithmetic in post #9 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
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 confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What to include when your question involves a chromatogram — one year on
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What to include when your question involves a chromatogram — one year on Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the…
|
+69 | 75 | 862 | 14d |
|
How much context is too much context in a first post?
How much context is too much context in a first post? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Counting it rather than describing it, because the count is the…
|
+69 | 74 | 935 | 18d |
|
Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post
The question in the title: Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Counting it rather than describing it, because the…
|
+113 | 126 | 55k | 20mo |
|
How to ask a question when you cannot say why you are asking it
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How to ask a question when you cannot say why you are asking it Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people…
|
+49 | 53 | 36k | 4h |
|
The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold?
The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Question in the title. Context…
|
+19 | 23 | 40k | 14d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: What this community means by "a source", in practical terms
The question in the title: What this community means by "a source", in practical terms I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Counting it rather than describing it, because the…
|
+16 | 20 | 7k | 18mo |
|
[2026 update] Mood changes: monitoring, and when to involve a professional
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Mood changes: monitoring, and when to involve a professional Everything below is what sits behind that. Something that has come up for me and that I suspect is more…
|
+12 | 17 | 300 | 11mo |
|
Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly
Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+99 | 110 | 61k | 2d |
|
A 10 mg vial reconstituted three different ways, compared — the long version
A 10 mg vial reconstituted three different ways, compared — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about 10 mg vial reconstituted three directly, because…
|
+146 | 158 | 47k | 9mo |
|
Why "dose equivalence" between different incretin analogues is a weak concept
Why "dose equivalence" between different incretin analogues is a weak concept I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have read the maintained page on this…
|
+124 | 133 | 11k | 5mo |