This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
I read post #59 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.
This follows post #59 rather than contradicting 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.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
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.
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.
Picking up post #63: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
What you have already read matters. Saying "I read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap" tells people they do not need to point you at the same resource you have already found. That is a genuine time saver.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
post #70 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
On post #68 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Lab result questions: state the result, the reference interval, and what else is on the same panel. A single flag on a single draw is usually uninformative without context.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #72 runs together.
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.
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.
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.
On post #77 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
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.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #81 runs together.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
post #85 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post — the long version
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post — the long version Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the…
|
+79 | 83 | 1.6k | 9mo |
|
Rewriting my first post: a before-and-after, with commentary
Rewriting my first post: a before-and-after, with commentary Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I want to check my reasoning rather than get a conclusion. My…
|
3 | 2.7k | 4mo | |
|
What to include when your question involves a laboratory result
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What to include when your question involves a laboratory result Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people…
|
+8 | 12 | 14k | 2d |
|
The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold?
The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Question in the title. Context…
|
+19 | 23 | 40k | 14d |
|
How to disagree with an answer you were given, well
How to disagree with an answer you were given, well — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include…
|
+9 | 13 | 1.6k | 1mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How much of the diluent volume the powder itself displaces
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How much of the diluent volume the powder itself displaces Practical question with the units stated, because I have seen how quickly these go wrong…
|
2 | 1.8k | 1d | |
|
About the Prescriber conversations category
How to prepare for an appointment, what to bring, and how to ask for what you need without antagonising anyone. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
+6 | 11 | 9.5k | 9mo |
|
Request: export my own posts
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Request: export my own posts Everything below is what sits behind that. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question…
|
2 | 57k | 6mo | |
|
Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly
Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A question about technique rather than about dose. I have been doing the…
|
+99 | 110 | 61k | 2d |
|
Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind — one year on
Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before…
|
+74 | 80 | 17k | 2d |