The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Everything in post #59 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.
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.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
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.
I read post #63 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Context that matters: compound, how long in, current dose, relevant history. Context that does not matter: how you feel, your hopes for the outcome, your medical history beyond what affects this specific question. The first set gets you answered. The second set makes the reply longer without making it better.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Post #67 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
"Has anyone had this happen" gets you anecdotes. "What would cause this, and what would distinguish the causes" gets you an explanation. The second question is almost always the one you wanted.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Where I part company with post #67, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
On post #68 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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 the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
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.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Taking post #78 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
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.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
Context that matters: compound, how long in, current dose, relevant history. Context that does not matter: how you feel, your hopes for the outcome, your medical history beyond what affects this specific question. The first set gets you answered. The second set makes the reply longer without making it better.
Where I part company with post #81, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Post #81 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.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
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.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Everything in post #86 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Narrowing post #89, because the general version has more than one answer.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.