What to include when your question involves a chromatogram — one year on posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Taking post #29 at face value and following it one step further.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for 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.
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.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Post #33 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Building on post #33 rather than restating it.
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.
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.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
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.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
Adding the measurement that post #38 says would settle it.
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.
Post #40 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.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
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.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
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.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
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 has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
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.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Everything in post #48 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
This follows post #50 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Post the arithmetic you already did. Half the questions here are answered by someone spotting which line of your working is wrong, and that is impossible if you only give the answer you got.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
On post #52 — 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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Picking up post #55: that is the part I would want checked first.
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 took me longer than it should have to see that.
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.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
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.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
Post #55 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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 am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.