Revisiting: What to include when your question involves arithmetic

Revisiting: What to include when your question involves arithmetic — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Counting it rather than describing it, because the count is the part that can be argued with.

13 instances over 18 weeks, recorded the same way each time, 2 of them different enough from the rest that I have set them aside and said so.

That is the whole dataset. The question in the title is what it does and does not support.

Taking the opening post at face value and following it one step further.

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 is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.

Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.

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.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

Worth separating two things that post #4 runs together.

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.

Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.

This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it.

Units. Everything needs units. This is why we ask every single time. I have seen the same arithmetic done three different ways depending on whether the person was thinking mg/mL or mg/dose or something else entirely. Stating the units makes that impossible.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

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.

On post #7 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Avoid "any advice?" at the end. It is so generic that people do not know which part of the post it refers to. Pick the specific part and ask that specific question instead.

It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.

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.

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.

This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.

Answering the question post #10 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.

Post #12 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

Quantities without units are the single commonest reason a question sits unanswered. "Two and a half" is not a dose, a volume or a concentration until you say which.