The question in the title: I have no scientific background — can I still follow the analytics categories? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.
I want to check my reasoning rather than get a conclusion.
My current understanding is set out below in the order I arrived at it. I think step two is the weakest part and I would like that examined first.
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.
Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.
There is no stupid-questions rule and no penalty for asking badly. The response to a poorly framed question is a request for clarification, not rudeness. That is a deliberately cultivated norm here.
post #2 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Off-topic posts that do not belong here belong in the Lounge instead. You are not in trouble if a moderator moves your post — they are just routing it to the right place so people who want to read it can find it.
Trust levels accumulate over time and they give you access to small things like the ability to edit your own posts without a timestamp. They are not a status symbol and they do not make you more right. Someone at trust level zero with a good question gets better answers than someone at trust level four with a bad one.
Picking up post #3: that is the part I would want checked first.
The FAQ link in the sidebar is maintained and worth ten hours of forum browsing. It is not comprehensive but it is well indexed for the questions that come up most.
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.
Your introduction is well framed. You have given enough context that people can actually answer. That is rarer than it sounds and it matters more than it sounds.
I read post #7 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
This follows post #7 rather than contradicting it.
Nothing here requires expertise. The experienced members here got that way by posting questions, not by knowing the answer before they showed up. If you know something useful, post it. If you do not, ask.
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.
I read post #10 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
post #12 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
There is no stupid-questions rule and no penalty for asking badly. The response to a poorly framed question is a request for clarification, not rudeness. That is a deliberately cultivated norm here.
post #16 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
On post #14 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Welcome. The orientation materials are pinned at the top of this category and they take about an hour. They answer most of the questions a new member has and they save time in the longer run.
This follows post #16 rather than contradicting it.
Your introduction is well framed. You have given enough context that people can actually answer. That is rarer than it sounds and it matters more than it sounds.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #19 runs together.
The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
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.
The FAQ link in the sidebar is maintained and worth ten hours of forum browsing. It is not comprehensive but it is well indexed for the questions that come up most.
On post #23 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Trust levels accumulate over time and they give you access to small things like the ability to edit your own posts without a timestamp. They are not a status symbol and they do not make you more right. Someone at trust level zero with a good question gets better answers than someone at trust level four with a bad one.
post #27 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
I read post #27 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Off-topic posts that do not belong here belong in the Lounge instead. You are not in trouble if a moderator moves your post — they are just routing it to the right place so people who want to read it can find it.
This follows post #27 rather than contradicting it.
Off-topic posts that do not belong here belong in the Lounge instead. You are not in trouble if a moderator moves your post — they are just routing it to the right place so people who want to read it can find it.