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.
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
On titles: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
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.
Coming back to post #90, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
"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.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Do not apologise in the first line. It costs you the space where the question should be, and nobody here thinks a question is an imposition.
Answering the question post #98 raises rather than the one it answers.
Chromatogram questions: describe the method first. Column type, gradient, wavelength, detection method. Everything else follows from method. A chromatogram without method is a number without context.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Post #100 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
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.
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.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
I disagree with the framing of titles 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.
Answering the question post #104 raises rather than the one it answers.
Practical note on titles: 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.
Staff note on titles, since it comes up. We retitle topics fairly often, always leaving the original in the first post and always logging it. It is not a criticism of the wording — it is that a title is how somebody finds this in eighteen months.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
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.
On post #107 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Picking up post #111: that is the part I would want checked first.
My understanding of titles is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Adding the measurement that post #115 says would settle it.
I would be cautious about generalising from the titles example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.
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.
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.