anna.melb_AU said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

anna.melb_AU said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Coming at anna.melb_AU’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

marco_milano said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.