December 22, 2024, 01:39:03 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Rant about Equations in Posts  (Read 3368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CaverKat

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-0
Rant about Equations in Posts
« on: December 30, 2011, 11:42:04 PM »
I'm trying to be helpful, probably learn something along the way.  But when I get to a question, where someone says they've used a formula and got an answer, and is their answer correct, I feel like pulling my hair out.

I don't remember what each annotation of each variable is!  Even if I do, it's quite confusing, especially with the different conventions in schools etc. (I don't know what B is?  What is B?  What units does it have?  Gah?!)

So I give up.  Can't be bothered looking up the formula, and deciphering the equation posted with one that I find on google.  Don't get me wrong, I want to help, but it would save uber amounts of time if people would put in just a tiny bit more info into their posts.

And what's wrong with using the "sup" and "sub" buttons?  It makes it much easier to view chemical equations and scientific notation and frequency and... I'm going to stop now.

Anyone else appreciate the subtleties (which make a big difference) to posting?

Offline Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27885
  • Mole Snacks: +1815/-412
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re: Rant about Equations in Posts
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2011, 05:44:01 AM »
it would save uber amounts of time if people would put in just a tiny bit more info into their posts

Actually, in most cases these people didn't put effort into understanding what they are doing, no wonder what they post looks like Greek.

Sadly, there is not much we can do about it. Yes, it is frustrating as hell. No, it is not only a problem of the Chemical Forums - I know other, similar sites, it is the same everywhere.

Feel free to help only when you see a light in the tunnel ;)

BTW: I can't see images you post, not sure about others.
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info

Offline sjb

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3653
  • Mole Snacks: +222/-42
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rant about Equations in Posts
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2011, 06:25:01 AM »
I'm trying to be helpful, probably learn something along the way.  But when I get to a question, where someone says they've used a formula and got an answer, and is their answer correct, I feel like pulling my hair out.

I don't remember what each annotation of each variable is!  Even if I do, it's quite confusing, especially with the different conventions in schools etc. (I don't know what B is?  What is B?  What units does it have?  Gah?!)

So I give up.  Can't be bothered looking up the formula, and deciphering the equation posted with one that I find on google.  Don't get me wrong, I want to help, but it would save uber amounts of time if people would put in just a tiny bit more info into their posts.

And what's wrong with using the "sup" and "sub" buttons?  It makes it much easier to view chemical equations and scientific notation and frequency and... I'm going to stop now.

Anyone else appreciate the subtleties (which make a big difference) to posting?

Absolutely, unfortunately a lot of assignments these days are electronic and merely copy and paste from place to place will lose a lot of the subtle formatting that you describe. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure at school I didn't fully appreciate much beyond my own country, despite now living further away from where I grew up (still in the same country) than where originally I could have got to several other nations. I don't think there's much excuse for that now, especially with the rise of the world wide web. I have tried on occasion to prod people into thinking about what they post, so when I see for instance a quoted figure of 1.609 x 103 (sic) metres for a mile I have either "simplified" that to 165.73 m, or edited the formatting in my quote of the question back to 1.609 x 103m, or queried the definitions of gallons etc. Is this the wrong way to go about it?

Sponsored Links