This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
Summarising the reading order thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Welcome. Two practical notes from staff. Your first few posts are rate-limited, which is an anti-spam measure and not a comment on you, and it lifts on its own. If you hit it and have something to add, edit the post you already made.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
I disagree with the framing of reading order above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Practical note on reading order: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
Reading the guidelines before you post is genuinely worth the twenty minutes. Not because you will break one, but because the rules explain why the place reads the way it does.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
Source for the reading order figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I have been on both sides of the reading order argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
Reading counts toward trust level, so lurking is not wasted. That is unusual and it is the reason the levels here track familiarity rather than volume.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
The Lounge is a real category rather than a dumping ground. The sourcing rule still applies there, which surprises people, but the register is looser and nobody minds a digression.
What I want from this reading order thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Adding a small correction to the reading order summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
What I would check first on reading order is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.