[2026 update] Long-time reader, first-time poster posts 31–51
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.
Picking up post #30: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
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 #34 rather than contradicting it.
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 #36 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
post #38 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
On post #36 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
On post #37 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
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.
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 #41 runs together.
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.
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.
Ongoing: you can post multiple introductions over time. If you return after a long break, reintroducing yourself is fine.
post #49 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
No spam: introductions are not a place to advertise commercial products or services. That is a rules violation.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hello from a laboratory that does not do peptides
Hello from a laboratory that does not do peptides — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim.…
|
+2 | 6 | 10k | 15mo |
|
Introducing myself: pharmacist, sceptic, reluctant participant
Introducing myself: pharmacist, sceptic, reluctant participant Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if…
|
+13 | 17 | 23k | 2mo |
|
Revisiting: Joined after a search result and stayed
Revisiting: Joined after a search result and stayed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a…
|
2 | 1.6k | 22mo | |
|
Here for the analytics and not much else
Here for the analytics and not much else — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim. Something…
|
+93 | 102 | 10k | 16h |
|
Introducing myself: pharmacist, sceptic, reluctant participant — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Introducing myself: pharmacist, sceptic, reluctant participant — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule…
|
+101 | 107 | 14k | 4mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags onboarding, beginner friendly
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 | |
|
Asking about a compound your prescriber has not heard of
Asking about a compound your prescriber has not heard of Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. General question, not a request for advice about my own care — I…
|
+137 | 148 | 15k | 11mo |
|
I have no scientific background — can I still follow the analytics categories?
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…
|
+29 | 40 | 1.4k | 12d |
|
What other technical communities get right that we do not
What other technical communities get right that we do not — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if…
|
+2 | 6 | 23k | 5h |
|
Revisiting: Five questions in one post gets you one answer — how to split them
Revisiting: Five questions in one post gets you one answer — how to split them Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Question in the title. Context below, and I…
|
+2 | 6 | 13k | 20mo |