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.
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.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
On post #31 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Speaking as somebody who asked badly last month and got a polite request for four missing details: writing the question properly the first time takes ten minutes and saves two days. Learn from me.
This follows post #32 rather than contradicting it.
A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Timeline questions need the timeline. Dates, in order, with what happened on each. "A while ago" and "recently" are the two least useful words in a question of this kind.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
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 #38, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A question about somebody else's post should be a reply to that post, not a new topic. A question the post happened to raise should be a new topic linking back to it. The difference is whether the answer is useful without the original.
"Has anyone had this happen" gets you anecdotes. "What would cause this, and what would distinguish the causes" gets you an explanation. The second question is almost always the one you wanted.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Worth separating two things that post #40 runs together.
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.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Post the arithmetic you already did. Half the questions here are answered by someone spotting which line of your working is wrong, and that is impossible if you only give the answer you got.
Picking up post #43: that is the part I would want checked first.
Tag your own topic. Two accurate tags do more for how findable it is than a long title, and you can change them later.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Say what you want out of the answer. "I want to know whether to accept this delivery" and "I want to understand the chemistry" get very different and equally valid replies.
When you quote a figure from somewhere else, say where from. Not as a formality — the answer frequently depends on whether the number came from a certificate, an independent report or a forum post.
I read post #47 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Lab result questions: state the result, the reference interval, and what else is on the same panel. A single flag on a single draw is usually uninformative without context.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
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 one more sentence than it usually gets.
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.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
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.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
Coming back to post #52, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
If you are asking about a document, quote the exact wording of the line you are asking about. Paraphrasing a specification is how a discussion ends up about a document nobody has read.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Say what you have already ruled out. "It is not the diluent because I tried a second vial from a different box" saves three replies suggesting the diluent.
If your question has a deadline — a parcel in transit, a delivery you have to accept or refuse — say so. People answer differently when there is a clock on it.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Post #57 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Nobody minds being asked to explain a term. The people who use them most are the quickest to define them, and a question that stops to ask is usually a question that gets a better answer.