user65518: In this question that I deleted because of it being on minus two and having two different objections to it in the comments:
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/105319/which-parts-if-any-of-this-ten-second-section-of-video-are-correct-about-mold?noredirect=1#comment191655_105319
Someone commented:
"You need to show prior research. You provided a source (which must be viewed, so that's not good) but none of what you learned when you tried to answer this yourself. –
anongoodnurse
15 hours ago"
Here's the question for those who can't see it because I deleted it:
"
https://www.amazon.com/vdp/b05be5a8921744ce95b5ddd74b544dbc?ref=dp_vse_rvc_0 is a video advertising and/or teaching about the Concrobium anti-mold product and how to use it.
The part that lasts ten seconds from the two minute mark seems a bit strange.
I didn't think mold spores had roots. I thought there was a mycelial network. Are those bush-like structures in the picture actually fruiting bodies, and should those "roots" actually connect to each other, forming a single network?
Also, it says "down to the roots" not "penetrate to the roots of mold", which earlier in the video it says is why you shouldn't use bleach ("bleach won't penetrate to the roots of mold" 1m 30s). It's not clear why stopping new spores from the air attaching to the surface would prevent the mycelial network ("roots") from making new fruiting bodies.
So my question is: which parts of that ten second bit of the video if any are correct about mold?
"
I don't understand what is meant by anongoodnurse's point about the fact that a video must be viewed, and I wonder whether it is a valid point.

user5144: The question should be clear from the text you write in the question field. In case you cite external sources, cite these directly and link them if somebody wants to have a direct look.
Viewing the external source should not be mandatory to understand the question as external sources can move or taken down. In this case, the question is rendered useless as it cannot be understood any longer.

user22057: In addition to the remarks from @Chris I would make two points, one minor and one major.
The minor point is that many sites on the Internet infringe on one’s privacy in various ways or subject one to advertisements. In using sites on the StackExchange network I have considered the implications of doing this for my privacy etc. and have decided that this is acceptable to me. Having done this, in order to use the sites I should not be required to go to external links which I may find unacceptable or even booby-trapped in some way.
The major point is that the aim of the site, given in the [Tour] is to compile answers to questions about biology. Thus, if you encounter an argument in external media that you think provokes a question about biology you must formulate it in a manner so that the biological problem is primary, not the statement, writing or video in which it appeared. In the case of external written material that involves providing quotes, in the case of visual material (e.g.species identification) that involves providing a photograph, in the case of audio or video material that involves formulating a verbal description.
So, for example, if you had encountered an animated video in which stackbeasties were shown with six appendages, and you think they sometimes have only four, you would formulate a question such as “Do stackbeasties always have six appendages?”, and then explain that an external source (to which you would provide provenance and a link) had maintained such and such but that you had read that... You are not prevented from asking questions relating to videos, you just have to make the additional effort to describe them or take a screenshot of a key frame and include it in your question.

65518: <p>In this question that I deleted because of it being on minus two and having two different objections to it in the comments:</p>
<p><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/105319/which-parts-if-any-of-this-ten-second-section-of-video-are-correct-about-mold?noredirect=1#comment191655_105319">https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/105319/which-parts-if-any-of-this-ten-second-section-of-video-are-correct-about-mold?noredirect=1#comment191655_105319</a></p>
<p>Someone commented:</p>
<p>&quot;You need to show prior research. You provided a source (which must be viewed, so that's not good) but none of what you learned when you tried to answer this yourself. –
anongoodnurse
15 hours ago&quot;</p>
<p>Here's the question for those who can't see it because I deleted it:</p>
<p>&quot;
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/vdp/b05be5a8921744ce95b5ddd74b544dbc?ref=dp_vse_rvc_0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/vdp/b05be5a8921744ce95b5ddd74b544dbc?ref=dp_vse_rvc_0</a> is a video advertising and/or teaching about the Concrobium anti-mold product and how to use it.</p>
<p>The part that lasts ten seconds from the two minute mark seems a bit strange.</p>
<p>I didn't think mold spores had roots. I thought there was a mycelial network. Are those bush-like structures in the picture actually fruiting bodies, and should those &quot;roots&quot; actually connect to each other, forming a single network?</p>
<p>Also, it says &quot;down to the roots&quot; not &quot;penetrate to the roots of mold&quot;, which earlier in the video it says is why you shouldn't use bleach (&quot;bleach won't penetrate to the roots of mold&quot; 1m 30s). It's not clear why stopping new spores from the air attaching to the surface would prevent the mycelial network (&quot;roots&quot;) from making new fruiting bodies.</p>
<p>So my question is: which parts of that ten second bit of the video if any are correct about mold?
&quot;</p>
<p>I don't understand what is meant by anongoodnurse's point about the fact that a video must be viewed, and I wonder whether it is a valid point.</p>
 5144: <p>The question should be clear from the text you write in the question field. In case you cite external sources, cite these directly and link them if somebody wants to have a direct look.</p>
<p>Viewing the external source should not be mandatory to understand the question as external sources can move or taken down. In this case, the question is rendered useless as it cannot be understood any longer.</p>
 22057: <p>In addition to the remarks from @Chris I would make two points, one minor and one major.</p>
<p>The minor point is that many sites on the Internet infringe on one’s privacy in various ways or subject one to advertisements. In using sites on the StackExchange network I have considered the implications of doing this for my privacy etc. and have decided that this is acceptable to me. Having done this, in order to use the sites I should not be required to go to external links which I may find unacceptable or even booby-trapped in some way.</p>
<p>The major point is that the aim of the site, given in the [Tour] is to compile answers to <strong>questions about biology</strong>. Thus, if you encounter an argument in external media that you think provokes a question about biology you must formulate it in a manner so that the biological problem is primary, not the statement, writing or video in which it appeared. In the case of external written material that involves providing quotes, in the case of visual material (e.g.species identification) that involves providing a photograph, in the case of audio or video material that involves formulating a verbal description.</p>
<p>So, for example, if you had encountered an animated video in which stackbeasties were shown with six appendages, and you think they sometimes have only four, you would formulate a question such as “Do stackbeasties always have six appendages?”, and then explain that an external source (to which you would provide provenance and a link) had maintained such and such but that you had read that... You are not prevented from asking questions relating to videos, you just have to make the additional effort to describe them or take a screenshot of a key frame and include it in your question.</p>
