| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Top vs Bottom posting
Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top
posting"... 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. 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.....) -- Dave S (The email account is a dummy for anti-spam purposes, please reply via the newsgroup) _________________ |
Top vs Bottom posting
Dave wrote:
Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... A. Top posters Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? A: Because it upsets the logical flow of the thread. Q: Why is top posting a bad idea? hth -- Ben Blaney GSF1200 VFR800 CBR600 CD200 "We stopped only for fuel" |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:33:10 +0100, Dave wrote:
Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... Part of the draft FAQ for uk.net.beginners. When you make a post to a newsgroup, it might be read by as many as 50 or 100 other people who subscribe to that newsgroup. It might be read within a few minutes, it might be read several days later. Any one of those individuals might want to make a comment about your post, so the thread can branch off in several directions. *A thread is not a sequential conversation*. That requires a certain degree of good manners and consideration towards other people. What do you mean, good manners and consideration? Remember that not everyone will have followed a thread from it's beginning. Someone may drop in on a thread when it's part way through. They won't have a clue about what has been said earlier, they will only see the particular message that they've chosen to read. That requires some rules for how you post messages. What are those rules? When you make a post in response to someone else's post, you may only be commenting about one or two details in that earlier post. It's good manners to snip out all the irrelevant stuff, without altering the sense of the original poster's (OP) comments. When you do that you usually show it by inserting snip where you have deleted their comments. You then add your comments underneath the OP's comments. Generally, this is called snipping, interleaving and bottom posting. Who enforces those rules? No one! They're a convention, primarily so that whoever reads your post sees the context in which they're written. I see messages where someone has posted comments at the top, not the bottom. This seems quicker and easier, and my newsreader seems to place the curser at the top anyway. Why shouldn't I top post? Remember that proper newsgroup posting is a consideration for others, to help subsequent readers of your post read your comments in their proper context. If you post your comments at the top and away from the previous poster's comments, then any subsequent reader will have to scroll through the whole post to try and make sense of yours and the previous poster's comments. It isn't so much about what is easiest for you, it's much more about what are good manners towards others. What happens if I decide to carry on top posting? Nothing, no one will come after you with a big stick, although you may get quite a lot of experienced poster making some very rude - flame - comments to you. Many experienced posters choose to totally ignore top posters, so your words of wisdom may never get read anyway. *The choice is yours.* What about if I forget now and then? We can all make occasional mistakes, you won't be heavily criticised for that, but as time goes on, you will find that proper posting style becomes second nature. |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:36:50 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote:
A. It is very annoying. Q. Why shouldn't you top post? Christian. Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... It's a pity you didn't practice what you were preaching. Oh, and I don't subscribe to irony...... |
Top vs Bottom posting
Posting at the bottom would be OK if people didn't insist on
quoting all that's gone before. BTW, this is not allowed either. You should only quote as much as is needed for context. You shouldn't quote the entirety of a previous post (unless it is a couple of lines) and then add a small bit at the bottom. Feel free to berate both top posters AND those unable to snip. Both are equally bad habits. Christian. |
Top vs Bottom posting
Dave wrote:
Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... Now you've gone and done it...Hope you're proud of the monster thread you've spawned. It's not about top v. bottom, it's about top v. *context* posting. 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. But how, then, does one reply to several different points in a post while still making sense? If people post at the bottom I frequently don't bother scrolling down to read it. Your loss/problem. Posting at the bottom would be OK if people didn't insist on quoting all that's gone before. And people shouldn't quote all that's gone before - unless there's no other way of putting their point across. Also, why do some people get so worked up about it? Does it cause problems with some news readers? Bottom posting is lazy, selfish, makes the thread impossible to follow, and from an archival point of view (do you use groups.google.com?) is extremely destructive. - it seems OK with Outlook Express and that's freely available. Well then you just keep using OE and top posting. Some light reading: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_topp.html -- Grunff |
Top vs Bottom posting
I''m with you. I like top posters as it makes it faster to read and
therefore more likely to comment on the return posting. THis is becuase of Outlook Express showing a tree of messages such that you can read the original easily. Other newsreaders are not set up the same, which means [dive for cover] that OE has something better in it than other newsreaders. It depends on whether the post is a conversation or a questions also..... nobody ever seems to comment that top posting works well for one, and bottom posting for the other. A "Dave" wrote in message ... Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... 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. 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.....) -- Dave S (The email account is a dummy for anti-spam purposes, please reply via the newsgroup) _________________ |
Top vs Bottom posting
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. |
Top vs Bottom posting
Wanderer wrote:
Ooops - slip of the tongue. Thanks. Funny fellow! Do you do all your typing with your tongue? Mmmmm...keyboard food.... -- Grunff |
Top vs Bottom posting
Arg wrote:
THis is becuase of Outlook Express showing a tree of messages such that you can read the original easily. Other newsreaders are not set up the same, which means [dive for cover] that OE has something better in it than other newsreaders. Netscape does this just fine thanks. Although I've tried a lot of other popular newsreaders which don't appear to do it properly... I don't know about OE or Outlook, neither have permission to run on this system, that little program permissions tool is quite handy :-) Lee -- To reply use lee.blaver and NTL world com |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:53:57 +0100, "Arg"
too_much_sp@m_so_email_disabled. wrote: I''m with you. I like top posters as it makes it faster to read and therefore more likely to comment on the return posting. .... except, of course, that this not only makes it impossible to follow a series of responses and to place responses in the context of previous comments, it also disregards the various standards and conventions that apply to Usenet. THis is becuase of Outlook Express showing a tree of messages such that you can read the original easily. Other newsreaders are not set up the same, which means [dive for cover] that OE has something better in it than other newsreaders. [dive for cover] indeed ... you don't seem to know much about other newsreaders (Agent, which I'm using now, allows for thread-based display, as well as other options). It depends on whether the post is a conversation or a questions also..... nobody ever seems to comment that top posting works well for one, and bottom posting for the other. As an earlier response, the issue is not top- vs bottom- posting, its top- vs. contextual posting. Try responding to each of the points I've made here using your top-posted preference, and see how readable/understandable the results are. Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:33:10 +0100, "Dave"
wrote: Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... I'll let others do that - my preference is to mix as follows. 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. I prefer for messages to be chopped into logical sections (as I am doing here), with responses to each section immediately following the query or issue. I find it much easier to follow than a long message with a long reply (top or bottom). The other "advantage" is that whole sections of redundant information can be deleted from the reply. Also, why do some people get so worked up about it? It's personal preference stuff, mostly. Some people prefer net curtains, others hate them. Same with blinds and so on. If a message is particularly long then it can take a while to download for people using a modem. (retires to fall-out shelter.....) No need. You'll never get a consensus on posting preferences. We each like our own particular style, and everyone else's is considered bad. PoP |
Top vs Bottom posting
In article ,
"Dave" writes: Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... Please search on google -- it isn't on-topic here. However, top and bottom posting are equally wrong. You quote each point in the posting you are following up, and place your response after that quoted text. You cut as much as you can from the from the posting you are following up -- you only include just enough so readers know which point you are following up. This is just such an example. Also, why do some people get so worked up about it? People get worked up about all sorts of things. I actually use top-posting as a good indicator of how naive the poster is, and as such find it remarkably useful. If I don't have time to read all the followups to a posting, I can quickly skip all the top- posted ones without reading them -- rarely do they have much valuable content as they never come from experienced contributors. Experienced contributors tend to know how to use usenet correctly and effectively. -- Andrew Gabriel |
Top vs Bottom posting
No need. You'll never get a consensus on posting preferences. We each
like our own particular style, and everyone else's is considered bad. Except that top posting is expressly forbidden by the group's charter. It isn't a matter of personal preference with both sides being equal, but a case of disregarding or obeying the rules. Christian. |
Top vs Bottom posting
"Wanderer" wrote in message
.. . On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:36:50 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote: A. It is very annoying. Q. Why shouldn't you top post? Christian. Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... It's a pity you didn't practice what you were preaching. Oh, and I don't subscribe to irony...... I think it shows the point quite well...... |
Top vs Bottom posting
PoP wrote:
Also, why do some people get so worked up about it? It's personal preference stuff, mostly. Some people prefer net curtains, others hate them. Same with blinds and so on. I *hate* net curtains, especially ones owned by top-posters. -- Grunff |
Top vs Bottom posting
What is sensible? It is? dave An example of what? In message , "Mungo \"two sheds\" Toadfoot" writes Not in a sensible order?? Yes it is! ** Si **This is an example! -- dave @ stejonda |
Top vs Bottom posting
Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot wrote:
Not in a sensible order?? Yes it is! ** Si **This is an example! This is a perfect example of why top posts are disliked by many! Peter's post contained a number of separate points made on different subjects. The comment above did not include any context as to which part of Peter's post it was in reply to. Also not trimming the bits of the post that were not relevant to the comment was as objectionable (IMHO) as the top post, as it results in lots of wasted bandwidth. This may not seem much of an issue for people with broadband connections or for those who read messages online, but all the redundant information (i.e. quoted text in excess of that necessary to establish the context of the reply) in the messages soon add up. For those who use offline readers on dialup connections they probably waste several minutes every time they download a batch of messages, as a result of the inconsiderate posting behaviour of some other users. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:01:17 +0100, Wanderer
wrote: Funny fellow! Do you do all your typing with your tongue? Don't get him started - he's a one finger typist, only I understand it might not be his finger..... ;) PoP |
Top vs Bottom posting
In uk.d-i-y, Wanderer wrote:
[quoting] I see messages where someone has posted comments at the top, not the bottom. This seems quicker and easier, and my newsreader seems to place the curser at the top anyway. Why shouldn't I top post? Before you start typing, you should delete irrelevant parts of the quoted material. For that purpose it's more convenient to have the cursor at the top than the bottom. -- Mike Barnes |
Top vs Bottom posting
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot wrote: Not in a sensible order?? Yes it is! ** Si **This is an example! This is a perfect example of why top posts are disliked by many! You do know that I did that on purpose to illustrate the evils of top-posting? 'Course you do :o) Si |
Top vs Bottom posting
"Arg" wrote
| "Dave" wrote | Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better | than "top posting"... | I''m with you. I like top posters as it makes it faster to read and | therefore more likely to comment on the return posting. | THis is becuase of Outlook Express showing a tree of messages such | that you can read the original easily. But that doesn't always happen - I use OE and the original is often not directly above the reply. In fact it may have got expired off my system or the ISP newsserver or may even not have been received by my or the ISP because of imperfect propagation. The original may not be visible on Googlegroups or other archives if it's been X-No-Archive'd. Dealing with over 500 new postings a day means I might not even remember reading the original. My OE displays about the first 20-24 lines of a posting without scrolling. I expect to be able to get the gist of a posting, including preceding discussion, within the first 20 lines. Anything more shows the writer isn't quoting properly. Interleaving quote / response, quote / response makes terse responses to quoted text possible without duplication whilst maintaining comprehension. And I find I can read messages very quickly on OE with one hand on the arrow key to move between unread postings and another hand on the wheelmouse to scroll within a posting. Having the attributions / references at the very top also makes it quick to pick out responses to my own postings. Owain |
Top vs Bottom posting
"John Rumm" wrote
| Also not trimming the bits of the post that were not relevant to | the comment was as objectionable (IMHO) as the top post, as | it results in lots of wasted bandwidth. It also results in a lot of irrelevant text to be worked through by people using voice synthesis or tactile braille output, which is slower than sighted reading. Owain |
Top vs Bottom posting
In , Dave typed:
: Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than : "top posting"... : : 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. : : 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.....) -- Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes with this: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix |
Top vs Bottom posting
Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot wrote:
You do know that I did that on purpose to illustrate the evils of top-posting? 'Course you do :o) To be honest - I was not actualy sure ;-) (But it seemed as good a post as any to help illustrate my mini rant!) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:53:57 +0100, "Arg"
too_much_sp@m_so_email_disabled. wrote: It depends on whether the post is a conversation or a questions also..... nobody ever seems to comment that top posting works well for one, and bottom posting for the other. I think mingle posting like I normally use is about as good as it gets in the readability stakes. Sadly you didn't leave anything below that last comment of yours for me to mingle post this time, so you'll just have to use your imagination as to how it might have looked! ;O) Take Care, Gnube {too thick for linux} |
Top vs Bottom posting
Christian McArdle wrote:
Posting at the bottom would be OK if people didn't insist on quoting all that's gone before. BTW, this is not allowed either. You should only quote as much as is needed for context. You shouldn't quote the entirety of a previous post (unless it is a couple of lines) and then add a small bit at the bottom. Feel free to berate both top posters AND those unable to snip. Both are equally bad habits. OTOH, do as everyone else does, and do whatever suits your purpose and the style. I personally will snip, not snip, top post, bottom post, respond line ny line, or as a summary, depending on the context and what if anything I am trying to achieve. And since I was on Usenet long before we even had Internet, and helped to build said internet to carry it, I personally think that all these moribund petty tyrants and net nannies can stuff some rapid set concrete up their rectal passages. Christian. |
Top vs Bottom posting
"Dave" wrote in message ...
Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... I'm definitely with the bottom-posters for all the reasons stated by others; my only *slight* leaning towards the top posters is the fact that I usually end up reading usenet on Google (because my ISP's newsfeed is so crap), which only displays the first 'X' lines of any long posts and forces you to click another link to display the full message. A right PITA. But again, as others have said, if people trimmed their reply posts properly and quoted only the necessary preceding context, in 90% of cases such messages wouldn't be too long for Google... David |
Top vs Bottom posting
What
What is What is so What is so good What is so good about What is so good about bottom- What is so good about bottom- posting? Edwin. |
Top vs Bottom posting
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:50:13 +0000, Mike Hibbert wrote:
I think it shows the point quite well...... That and the other classic: A: Top posters Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet? Andy |
Top vs Bottom posting
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes In article , "Dave" writes: Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top posting"... I can quickly skip all the top- posted ones without reading them -- rarely do they have much valuable content as they never come from experienced contributors. Experienced contributors tend to know how to use usenet correctly and effectively. Perfect. Absolutely perfect - and a system I also use. It rarely lets me down. -- Graeme |
Top vs Bottom posting
"Grunff" wrote in message ... Wanderer wrote: Ooops - slip of the tongue. Thanks. Funny fellow! Do you do all your typing with your tongue? Mmmmm...keyboard food.... Ughh gross! |
Top vs Bottom posting
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. That's more like not speaking to some-one who asks for help because they don't wear the "right" sort of clothes. Or racsim. Chill out.... Suz |
Top vs Bottom posting
"Owain" wrote in message ... "John Rumm" wrote | Also not trimming the bits of the post that were not relevant to | the comment was as objectionable (IMHO) as the top post, as | it results in lots of wasted bandwidth. It also results in a lot of irrelevant text to be worked through by people using voice synthesis or tactile braille output, which is slower than sighted reading. Owain This may not be correct, but surely very few blind people would be reading through a DIY newsgroup. I may be entirely wrong, but a blind programmer I worked with once told me that it was one of the minor plus points - not having to do DIY for SWMBO. |
Top vs Bottom posting
"Suz" wrote
| "Owain" wrote [about not trimming quoted text] | It also results in a lot of irrelevant text to be worked through by people | using voice synthesis or tactile braille output, which is slower than | sighted reading. | This may not be correct, but surely very few blind people would be reading | through a DIY newsgroup. I may be entirely wrong, but a blind programmer I | worked with once told me that it was one of the minor plus points - not | having to do DIY for SWMBO. I recall a blind carpenter being interviewed on the radio once, so you might be surprised what some visually-impaired people get up to. And there are plenty of enquiries from people on the group who want advice about something even if they are intending getting a tradesperson in to do some or all of the work, and this might be very useful to a VI person. Owain |
Top vs Bottom posting
Suz wrote:
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message t... No need. You'll never get a consensus on posting preferences. We each like our own particular style, and everyone else's is considered bad. Except that top posting is expressly forbidden by the group's charter. It isn't a matter of personal preference with both sides being equal, but a case of disregarding or obeying the rules. Christian. What group's charter? This is like being laughed at by snobs at a dinner party for using the wrong fish knife. I've only recently started using newsgroups and other than the fact that most people bottom post, everything else has to be guessed at. Chill out. Quite right. On usenet, anything that doesn't get your account suspended, goes. Suz |
Top vs Bottom posting
In message , Wanderer
writes On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:00:30 +0100, Grunff wrote: Lee Blaver wrote: Grunff wrote: Bottom posting is lazy, selfish, makes the thread impossible to follow, and from an archival point of view (do you use groups.google.com?) is extremely destructive. Did you mean to say that? :-) Ooops - slip of the tongue. Thanks. Funny fellow! Do you do all your typing with your tongue? It depends how much beer I just spilled on the keyboard -- geoff |
Top vs Bottom posting
In message , Suz
writes At the top, at the top, at the top... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:53:57 +0100, "Arg" too_much_sp@m_so_email_disabled. wrote: I''m with you. I like top posters as it makes it faster to read and therefore more likely to comment on the return posting. ... except, of course, that this not only makes it impossible to follow a series of responses and to place responses in the context of previous comments, it also disregards the various standards and conventions that apply to Usenet. Not if you are expecting it to be the other way round. Loads of mails between my girlfriends and I last for weeks, all replies top written obviously, and it is much easier than having to scroll through stuff read before. Top posting is OK between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. Of course, if you say something, she replies, you reply etc, you already know what's gone before -- geoff |
Top vs Bottom posting
And there are plenty of enquiries from people on the group who want advice
about something even if they are intending getting a tradesperson in to do some or all of the work, and this might be very useful to a VI person. True |
Top vs Bottom posting
... except, of course, that this not only makes it impossible to
follow a series of responses and to place responses in the context of previous comments, it also disregards the various standards and conventions that apply to Usenet. Not if you are expecting it to be the other way round. Loads of mails between my girlfriends and I last for weeks, all replies top written obviously, and it is much easier than having to scroll through stuff read before. Top posting is OK between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. Of course, if you say something, she replies, you reply etc, you already know what's gone before -- Not if you were the one that was left out while the others bitch about you and then some tube goes and sends it 2 you later... Life flashes before your eyes when you realise you've done that. I haven't, but my pal did TWICE. Not that any of the guys on uk.d-i-y would ever moan about anyone else.... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter