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.
I read post #29 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
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 #33 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Coming back to post #33, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Picking up post #33: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
post #46 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Picking up post #46: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Coming back to post #48, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
On post #47 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
post #51 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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.
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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How to disagree with an answer you were given, well
How to disagree with an answer you were given, well — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include…
|
+9 | 13 | 1.6k | 1mo |
|
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 | |
|
Five questions in one post gets you one answer — how to split them
On the subject in the title: Five questions in one post gets you one answer — how to split them Working notes rather than a conclusion. Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the…
|
+84 | 90 | 1k | 2mo |
|
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 | |
|
Why we ask for units every single time, with three examples of what goes wrong — what changed since
The question in the title: Why we ask for units every single time, with three examples of what goes wrong — what changed since I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Question in…
|
+14 | 18 | 19k | 2mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Follow-up: Subcutaneous absorption kinetics and site differences
Subcutaneous absorption kinetics and site differences — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere. A…
|
4 | 9.9k | 10mo | |
|
[2026 update] Dose numbers across compounds are not on the same scale
On the subject in the title: Dose numbers across compounds are not on the same scale Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I am asking…
|
+14 | 18 | 1.2k | 13mo |
|
A friction point in the promotion workflow — the long version
On the subject in the title: A friction point in the promotion workflow — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic…
|
+1 | 5 | 46k | 13mo |
|
How to ask for a dose change without antagonising anyone
The question in the title: How to ask for a dose change without antagonising anyone I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Asking about a population rather than about a person.…
|
+19 | 23 | 2.9k | 23mo |