This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Tag your own topic. Two accurate tags do more for how findable it is than a long title, and you can change them later.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Confirming post #30 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Post #32 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.
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.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
The specific question in the title is more useful than you might think. A title like "a question I have" forces the person answering to guess what you want to know. A title with the actual question gets you an answer in two hours instead of two days.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
The arithmetic in post #38 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Edit the first post rather than adding the missing detail in reply nine. People arriving later read the first post and stop.
Answering the question post #36 raises rather than the one it answers.
When you quote a figure from somewhere else, say where from. Not as a formality — the answer frequently depends on whether the number came from a certificate, an independent report or a forum post.
A weak preference rather than a position.
Building on post #41 rather than restating 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.
Everything in post #41 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.
Post #41 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
When you quote a figure from somewhere else, say where from. Not as a formality — the answer frequently depends on whether the number came from a certificate, an independent report or a forum post.
Taking post #45 at face value and following it one step further.
Arithmetic questions: write out the steps. "I have a 10 mg vial, I added 2 mL, I want a 0.25 mg dose, and I get this number for the syringe mark" is answerable. "How many units" is not.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
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.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
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.
That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
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.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
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.
Post #52 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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 answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
I read post #50 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Disagreement-style questions: "I read this and it contradicts what I heard here, which is right?" is answerable. "Is this a bad idea?" without giving the context is not.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
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 am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Say what you have already ruled out. "It is not the diluent because I tried a second vial from a different box" saves three replies suggesting the diluent.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
Building on post #56 rather than restating it.
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.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
Post #59 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
"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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.