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 #88 rather than contradicting it.
Your introduction is well framed. You have given enough context that people can actually answer. That is rarer than it sounds and it matters more than it sounds.
I read post #90 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
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.
Coming back to post #94, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
post #96 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
Welcome. The orientation materials are pinned at the top of this category and they take about an hour. They answer most of the questions a new member has and they save time in the longer run.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
post #102 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.
Worth separating two things that post #100 runs together.
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.
Picking up post #102: that is the part I would want checked first.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
Welcome. The orientation materials are pinned at the top of this category and they take about an hour. They answer most of the questions a new member has and they save time in the longer run.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
On post #104 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
There is no stupid-questions rule and no penalty for asking badly. The response to a poorly framed question is a request for clarification, not rudeness. That is a deliberately cultivated norm here.
I read post #108 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.
The FAQ link in the sidebar is maintained and worth ten hours of forum browsing. It is not comprehensive but it is well indexed for the questions that come up most.
Trust levels accumulate over time and they give you access to small things like the ability to edit your own posts without a timestamp. They are not a status symbol and they do not make you more right. Someone at trust level zero with a good question gets better answers than someone at trust level four with a bad one.
I read post #111 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.
Nothing here requires expertise. The experienced members here got that way by posting questions, not by knowing the answer before they showed up. If you know something useful, post it. If you do not, ask.
Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.
Off-topic posts that do not belong here belong in the Lounge instead. You are not in trouble if a moderator moves your post — they are just routing it to the right place so people who want to read it can find it.
Coming back to post #115, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Welcome. The orientation materials are pinned at the top of this category and they take about an hour. They answer most of the questions a new member has and they save time in the longer run.
Picking up post #115: that is the part I would want checked first.
The compound and evidence pages are updated regularly and they are worth reading when you are new. They answer the meta questions like "do we have data on this" and "what do the trials actually show" before you ask them.
Worth separating two things that post #115 runs together.
Nothing here requires expertise. The experienced members here got that way by posting questions, not by knowing the answer before they showed up. If you know something useful, post it. If you do not, ask.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lurking for two months before posting: was that the right call?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Lurking for two months before posting: was that the right call? Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people…
|
+67 | 71 | 11k | 8mo |
|
What "marked as solution" means and who gets to mark it — does this still hold?
What "marked as solution" means and who gets to mark it — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I want to check my reasoning rather…
|
+69 | 74 | 2.4k | 3mo |
|
How to tell whether your question is already answered on a maintained page
How to tell whether your question is already answered on a maintained page — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Question in the title. Context below, and I…
|
+5 | 9 | 30k | 3mo |
|
What happens after your first post: likes, trust levels, and why none of it matters much
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What happens after your first post: likes, trust levels, and why none of it matters much I want to check my reasoning rather than get a conclusion.…
|
+15 | 19 | 17k | 16mo |
|
Reading order for a first week here, and what to skip until later
Reading order for a first week here, and what to skip until later 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.…
|
+112 | 117 | 3.1k | 15mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Books and papers worth reading that are not about this at all
On the subject in the title: Books and papers worth reading that are not about this at all Working notes rather than a conclusion. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a…
|
+13 | 17 | 13k | 19mo |
|
Tag proliferation and whether we should prune — what changed since
Tag proliferation and whether we should prune — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The…
|
+5 | 9 | 709 | 5mo |
|
Second pass at: A history of disordered eating: proceeding carefully
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: A history of disordered eating: proceeding carefully Working notes rather than a conclusion. General question, not a request for advice about my own care — I know…
|
+125 | 132 | 51k | 10mo |
|
Titles that describe the question, not the situation
Titles that describe the question, not the situation — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people…
|
+139 | 153 | 22k | 8mo |
|
Spreadsheets: an appreciation
On the subject in the title: Spreadsheets: an appreciation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim. Something adjacent that I…
|
+26 | 30 | 25k | 2.1y |