In article ,
"Dave" wrote:

Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top
posting"...

Because it is much easier to follow the flow of the conversation. This
may not matter if you reply to a single author post, but if you top post
a reply to a layered post with multiple authors I have to scroll down to
the bottom to find out what you might be responding to. Your comment
will be out of sync in the conversation.

I far prefer posts at the top, simply because the new information can be
read easily and then, if it looks interesting, I can scroll through the
history if I haven't been following the thread. If people post at the
bottom I frequently don't bother scrolling down to read it. Posting at
the bottom would be OK if people didn't insist on quoting all that's
gone before.

And you have thus hit upon another frequent bugbear, an inability to
trim that which is not relevant. My server insists I do this and will
not post messages that do not contain sufficient new content. As for not
being bothered, I not infrequently refrain from giving advise to
gratuitous top posters when they ask for it and I am in a position to
give it. Much like I might ignore someone in the street if they were
rude to me.

Also, why do some people get so worked up about it? Does it cause
problems with some news readers? - it seems OK with Outlook Express and
that's freely available.
(retires to fall-out shelter.....)

It simply makes it hard to follow the conversation since it is not in a
sensible order.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.