Introducing myself: pharmacist, sceptic, reluctant participant — one year on posts 31–60

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.

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.

Picking up post #44: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

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.

post #48 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.

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.

Coming back to post #49, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

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.

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.

post #53 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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 #53 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

This follows post #53 rather than contradicting it.

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.

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.

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.

No spam: introductions are not a place to advertise commercial products or services. That is a rules violation.

Picking up post #57: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.