Revisiting: What to include when your question involves arithmetic

Revisiting: What to include when your question involves arithmetic — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people here always have to ask for.

What I have already read: the relevant maintained document, the two topics it links to, and the tag page. What I could not find is the specific case I am in, which may simply mean it is uncommon.

I am happy to be told this is answered elsewhere if someone can point at where.

This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it.

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.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

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.

Coming back to post #3, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

Picking up post #3: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

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.

I read post #7 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

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.

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.

I read post #10 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

post #12 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.

Disagreeing with an answer you got: cite what you disagree with, say what contradicts it, and ask which one holds. Do not open with "I think you are wrong". Lead with the evidence.