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.
This follows post #28 rather than contradicting it.
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.
I read post #30 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
Picking up post #32: that is the part I would want checked 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.
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.
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.
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 #39, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
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.
post #43 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
I read post #43 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
This follows post #43 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.
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.
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.
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.
Picking up post #47: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #48 runs together.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second pass at: Asking a follow-up: new topic or new reply?
The question in the title: Second pass at: Asking a follow-up: new topic or new reply? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I want to check my reasoning rather than get a…
|
4 | 81 | 8mo | |
|
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 | |
|
About the How to Ask category
Framing a question so that it can actually be answered: what to include, what to leave out, and why we ask for units. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every…
|
+6 | 10 | 11k | 4mo |
|
What to include when your question involves a laboratory result — a second dataset
What to include when your question involves a laboratory result — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Question in the title. Context…
|
2 | 7k | 23d | |
|
Rewriting my first post: a before-and-after, with commentary — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Rewriting my first post: a before-and-after, with commentary — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. I want to check my reasoning rather…
|
+15 | 19 | 12k | 13h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A 5 mg vial and a 0.25 mg dose: the arithmetic in full — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A 5 mg vial and a 0.25 mg dose: the arithmetic in full — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. I have read the maintained page on this and I…
|
+86 | 93 | 25k | 13mo |
|
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — does this still hold? Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the…
|
+76 | 90 | 57k | 9h |
|
Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on
On the subject in the title: Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the…
|
+75 | 81 | 3.9k | 4mo |
|
Subcutaneous absorption kinetics and site differences
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Subcutaneous absorption kinetics and site differences Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat…
|
+15 | 19 | 3.9k | 12mo |
|
A 10 mg vial reconstituted three different ways, compared — the long version
A 10 mg vial reconstituted three different ways, compared — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reporting something rather than asking about it, in case the…
|
+146 | 158 | 47k | 9mo |