I'm specifically asking about this question, but general advice is as always welcomed.
As pointed out in Fizz answer, what I refer to as "external factor" is called in the field "confounders", and my lengthy description of proposed study can be simply replace with "control study".
Now I'm wondering whether I should replace my made up definitions with the scientific ones and cut down on unnecessary explaining. I can see reasons to go either way:
- The question becomes more concise, which means time to read and understand it becomes shorter (easier to read and understand)
- There is no reason to create lengthy examples to illustrate idea, because terms used are already well understood (more focus on the actual question, instead of explaining the question)
- There is no prior knowledge required to understand what is asked and reader can learn proper terms from the answer (opportunity to learn proper term)
- I'd imagine people who don't know the answer to simple questions like this one also have no knowledge of scientific terms used in the field and are going to search for an answer using layman's terms (better discoverability)
If it were up to me, I'd be leaning towards editing and adding links to explanations of those terms, especially since I can imagine cutting down the question into no more than 3 sentences when using scientific terms, but I wanted to ask more experienced user what's their opinion.
Should I edit a basic question to use more scientific names, making it much more concise but at the same time harder to understand for people outside the field, who are more likely to not know the answer?