Here for the analytics and not much else — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim.
Something adjacent that I have been thinking about and that does not belong in any of the technical categories. No question in particular; I am interested in how other people see it.
post #2 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Community culture: introductions give you a sense of who is here. Reading a few introduces you to the people and the tone of the community.
Following up: if you introduce yourself and someone asks a follow-up question, you can reply here or in a direct message depending on what feels right.
Picking up post #3: that is the part I would want checked first.
Privacy: share only what you are comfortable making permanent and public. An introduction is archived and searchable; do not include information you will later regret posting.
On post #3 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Lurking first: if you want to introduce yourself after lurking a bit, that is fine. You do not have to introduce yourself before your first technical post either.
I read post #7 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Welcome: the response to introductions is usually welcome. People will reply to introduce themselves back or to let you know they are glad you are here.
This follows post #7 rather than contradicting it.
Ongoing: you can post multiple introductions over time. If you return after a long break, reintroducing yourself is fine.
This follows post #8 rather than contradicting it.
No spam: introductions are not a place to advertise commercial products or services. That is a rules violation.
I read post #10 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
What to include: your name or handle, how you found the community, what brings you here, maybe something about yourself that seems relevant (clinician, researcher, person using these compounds, curious). Anything you are comfortable sharing.
Community culture: introductions give you a sense of who is here. Reading a few introduces you to the people and the tone of the community.
What to include: your name or handle, how you found the community, what brings you here, maybe something about yourself that seems relevant (clinician, researcher, person using these compounds, curious). Anything you are comfortable sharing.
Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
No judgment: people come to this community from all backgrounds and with all motivations. Introductions are for getting to know each other, not for evaluation.
post #16 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Privacy: share only what you are comfortable making permanent and public. An introduction is archived and searchable; do not include information you will later regret posting.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
I read post #19 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Say hello. No question required. Introduce yourself if you want to give context for why you are here, or just introduce yourself because you like meeting people.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
post #23 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Following up: if you introduce yourself and someone asks a follow-up question, you can reply here or in a direct message depending on what feels right.
Coming back to post #23, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Ongoing: you can post multiple introductions over time. If you return after a long break, reintroducing yourself is fine.
No judgment: people come to this community from all backgrounds and with all motivations. Introductions are for getting to know each other, not for evaluation.