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.

Counting it rather than describing it, because the count is the part that can be argued with.

13 instances over 18 weeks, recorded the same way each time, 2 of them different enough from the rest that I have set them aside and said so.

That is the whole dataset. The question in the title is what it does and does not support.

This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it.

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.

That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

"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.

I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.

If the answer you got does not fit your case, say which part does not fit rather than restating the question. Otherwise the next reply is the same as the last one.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

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

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.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

If the answer you got does not fit your case, say which part does not fit rather than restating the question. Otherwise the next reply is the same as the last one.

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

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.

It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.

Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.

This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.

I read post #9 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.

Post #12 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

Quantities without units are the single commonest reason a question sits unanswered. "Two and a half" is not a dose, a volume or a concentration until you say which.