Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> writes:

> I hate bottom posting with a passion. I only do it to get
> along with others. It's a pain in the neck.

That's a false dichotomy. Top-posting and bottom-posting are both bad.

As already pointed out, top-posting is bad because it breaks the flow
of normal discussion. We read chronologically top-to-bottom, so your
reply should follow what you're replying to.

But bottom-posting implies the other problem that's been referred to:
failing to trim the quoted material. Usually your reply will be
relevant only to a subset of the original to which you're replying, so
it's annoying to let that quoted material build up and up in a thread.

The preferred style is "trimmed quote, inline posting": remove
anything from the original not relevant to your reply (leave the
attribution lines so we can still see who wrote which part), and place
your reply inline with the part of the original you're responding to.

That way there's enough context without it being obnoxious, and the
message reads chronologically.

--
\ "If you do not trust the source do not use this program." -- |
`\ Microsoft Vista security dialogue |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> writes:

> The preferred style is "trimmed quote, inline posting": remove
> anything from the original not relevant to your reply (leave the
> attribution lines so we can still see who wrote which part), and
> place your reply inline with the part of the original you're
> responding to.

Like this. Note that parts of the message irrelevant to my reply have
been trimmed, and each part of my reply is inline with the part of the
original that I'm responding to.

I also preserve the attribution line at the start of the quoted
material, so someone quoting this message doesn't have to disambiguate
who wrote what at each level.

> That way there's enough context without it being obnoxious, and the
> message reads chronologically.

Since I'm not responding to any further part of the original, that's
gone too.

Hopefully this makes it clear. (Also hopefully I don't look too crazy
replying to myself, for illustration.)

--
\ "What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?" -- Anonymous |
`\ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:01:45 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Because it interrupts the normal flow of the conversation.
>Why is it so bad?
>Bottom posting.
>What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

I don't see that at all. Top posting keeps me from having to
scroll through all of the things I've already read in previous posts.
In short, it's a lot more work and annoyance than it has to be.

Personally, I'd like to shoot the guy that implemented the
idea. That's how much I dislike it.

Regards,



Fred

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:30:22 +1100, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>That's a false dichotomy. Top-posting and bottom-posting are both bad.

Nothing personal, but I don't share your view.

>As already pointed out, top-posting is bad because it breaks the flow
>of normal discussion. We read chronologically top-to-bottom, so your
>reply should follow what you're replying to.

I don't see how not having to reread things that I read on
previous posts breaks the flow of the conversation. It certainly
doesn't for me.

>But bottom-posting implies the other problem that's been referred to:
>failing to trim the quoted material. Usually your reply will be
>relevant only to a subset of the original to which you're replying, so
>it's annoying to let that quoted material build up and up in a thread.

That's true. I trim out the old stuff when I post and try to
leave a minimal amount of comments from the previous post.

But for those that don't, I'd rather they just top post and be
done with it. That way I don't have to scroll all the way to the
bottom of the post to read the new comments. You don't really think I
reread it every time, do you?

>The preferred style is "trimmed quote, inline posting": remove
>anything from the original not relevant to your reply (leave the
>attribution lines so we can still see who wrote which part), and place
>your reply inline with the part of the original you're responding to.

That's what I often (though not always) do. It's an
improvement, I'll admit.

>That way there's enough context without it being obnoxious, and the
>message reads chronologically.

Well, chronologically or not, I don't reread paragraph after
paragraph of what I've already read. So that part doesn't do anything
for me anyway.

Regards,



Fred

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:01:33 +1100, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>Hopefully this makes it clear. (Also hopefully I don't look too crazy
>replying to myself, for illustration.)

No, you seem like a guy who's got things together.

I notice from your email address that you are from Down Under.
I have friends around Melbourne and another friend in Perth. In fact,
I visited your beautiful country in 1991. It was a very wonderful and
special time for me.

Your country is beautiful and your countrymen are wonderful
hosts.

By the way, is that name 'Ben Finney' your real name or did
you borrow that (as a pen name) from an episode of Star Trek (entitled
Court Martial)? Ben Finney was played by Richard Webb (he was Captain
Midnight/Jet Jackson on his own television show in the 1960s, by the
way). Yes, I've followed Star Trek closely since it came out in the
late sixties. I was in junior high school when it came out. To most
kids of the time, it was the greatest thing going.

Regards,



Fred

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:24:05 -0500, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:01:45 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
><jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Because it interrupts the normal flow of the conversation.
>>Why is it so bad?
>>Bottom posting.
>>What's the most annoying thing on usenet?
>
> I don't see that at all. Top posting keeps me from having to
>scroll through all of the things I've already read in previous posts.
>In short, it's a lot more work and annoyance than it has to be.
>
> Personally, I'd like to shoot the guy that implemented the
>idea. That's how much I dislike it.

Proper posting was around a long tine before microsoft invented top
posting. That you don't see it is ok. What you're saying by top
posting is that you don't care what people think about you or your
opinion. If that's your intent, top post away.

--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:36:34 -0500, "Jeb Hunter" <jebhunter@mail.com>
wrote:

>I think

No, you don't.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================

Fred Atkinson wrote:
> I don't see that at all. Top posting keeps me from having to
> scroll through all of the things I've already read in previous posts.
> In short, it's a lot more work and annoyance than it has to be.

That's over-quoting, and that's bad too. It's bad because anybody who
cares about what's being discussed still has to scroll to the end to
see if there's any new knowledge there.

Me, if I can't see a post making sense within about 3 screens full, I
just toss it.

Mel.

Fred Atkinson wrote:
> I don't see how not having to reread things that I read on
> previous posts breaks the flow of the conversation. It certainly
> doesn't for me.

That depends on a lot of things, including whether you're reading the posts
shortly after they were posted, or long enough that the antecedents might have
rotated off your reader. It might also have been a couple of days or longer
since reading the other posts, and having a little intro makes it easier for
the reader.

Of course, it's always an argument whether to make life easier on the readers
or the writer. Most Usenet denizens consider it polite for the writer to make
life easier on the readers as a matter of courtesy.

There's also the local custom factor - it's been the custom since the dawn of
Usenet, as attested in every FAQ I've ever seen on the topic and mentioned
upthread as well, to use trim-and-inline posting rather than top- or
bottom-posting. Again, the goal is to make each message easier to read, but
manners and custom are also relevant.

As far as readability goes, I find it jarring and often disconcerting to read
top-posted messages. It's often difficult for me to establish the context of
a top-posted reply until I've read the entire quoted post beneath it to
attempt to figure out the antecedents. Given that inline posting is the
documented Usenet norm and more logical layout, it always puzzles me that some
folks are so obstinate about using it.

Oh, well, it's the privilege of respondents to not answer such posts, and the
risk of flouters that they'll lose the best replies due to their lack of courtesy.

--
Lew

Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

[snip]

> I don't see how not having to reread things that I read on
>previous posts breaks the flow of the conversation. It certainly
>doesn't for me.

It can. If the discussion is just chatter, then it might not
make much difference. If, however, there are points being argued,
having some history helps. My newsreader shows quoted material in a
different colour which makes it even easier.

You might also be reading the follow-up post days later.

[snip]

> That's true. I trim out the old stuff when I post and try to
>leave a minimal amount of comments from the previous post.

Good.

> But for those that don't, I'd rather they just top post and be
>done with it. That way I don't have to scroll all the way to the
>bottom of the post to read the new comments. You don't really think I
>reread it every time, do you?

No, but you might need to remind yourself yourself what the
poster you are replying to was replying to, even if it was you (and it
might have been a third party). Or someone else might need it.

I have read abbreviated posts in forums such as "I think you're
right." and have had no idea what is being referred to. Such posts
are a waste.

Judicious trimming is very helpful.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.