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)
_________________

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"

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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)
_________________

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

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

"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

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}

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

"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

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.

Thanks to all. I've had lots of help from people in this newsgroup so if
the majority dislike top-posting I'm happy to change my natural
tendency.
There are too many overlapping threads to comment/reply to each one so
here's an attempt at a summary.

To my mind the best response is from The Natural Philosopher:
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
confrontational bit deleted.

I too have been using newsgroups in various forms since before the www
(probably 18+ years), in my professional use (a V large IT organisation)
it seems that the minority bottom post, the majority mingle or top post
and AFAIK there's never been a war of words.

The real problem seems to be that people quote far more than they need
to in public newsgroups (so the useful bit gets buried and download
times are extended). If only the bare minimum were quoted the newsgroup
would download faster, the info would be easier to read and there would
be less waste storage.

Just a thought..... plainly mixed top/bottom isn't going to work,
wouldn't it all actually be more logical for everyone to top-post? The
fresh info would then be instantly visible and anyone that wants to see
the history can start reading from the bottom.

Grunff said that top posting was "lazy", 'don't see where laziness comes
in to it.

Christian McArdle mentioned a "charter" for the group - I hadn't heard
of this before, where is it?

--
Dave S
(The email account is a dummy for anti-spam purposes, please reply via
the newsgroup)
_________________

Christian McArdle mentioned a "charter" for the group - I hadn't heard
of this before, where is it?

Whilst I was sure I had read the charter for uk.d-i-y a year or so ago, I
can no longer find it.

They are normally all pretty similar and say you mustn't top post, use a
signature more than 4 lines, quote the entire previous post, cross post to
more than 6 groups or post advertising unless of a very specific nature
designed to appeal specifically to the group or thread in question.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

Whilst I was sure I had read the charter for uk.d-i-y a year or so ago, I
can no longer find it.

No charter as such:
URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.d-i-y.html

But the faq says to follow netiquette, and explicitly requests
posters to snip:
URL:http://diyfaq.org.uk/netiquette.html

--
Grunff

Dave wrote:

Grunff said that top posting was "lazy", 'don't see where laziness comes
in to it.

Laziness is not bothering to snip the post, leaving only the
relevant bit, and posting a reply to that one bit.

See my second reply to this post.

--
Grunff

This is laziness.

Dave wrote:
Thanks to all. I've had lots of help from people in this newsgroup so if
the majority dislike top-posting I'm happy to change my natural
tendency.
There are too many overlapping threads to comment/reply to each one so
here's an attempt at a summary.

To my mind the best response is from The Natural Philosopher:

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
confrontational bit deleted.

I too have been using newsgroups in various forms since before the www
(probably 18+ years), in my professional use (a V large IT organisation)
it seems that the minority bottom post, the majority mingle or top post
and AFAIK there's never been a war of words.

The real problem seems to be that people quote far more than they need
to in public newsgroups (so the useful bit gets buried and download
times are extended). If only the bare minimum were quoted the newsgroup
would download faster, the info would be easier to read and there would
be less waste storage.

Just a thought..... plainly mixed top/bottom isn't going to work,
wouldn't it all actually be more logical for everyone to top-post? The
fresh info would then be instantly visible and anyone that wants to see
the history can start reading from the bottom.

Grunff said that top posting was "lazy", 'don't see where laziness comes
in to it.

Christian McArdle mentioned a "charter" for the group - I hadn't heard
of this before, where is it?

--
Dave S
(The email account is a dummy for anti-spam purposes, please reply via
the newsgroup)
_________________




--
Grunff

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:37:43 +0100, Grunff wrote:

This is laziness.

One more like that and you're going to be only the second person ever
to enter my kill file! ;O)

I wouldn't if I were you, unless you like the idea of sharing with
"IMM" as a killfilemate for the rest of all time! eek!

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

Gnube wrote:

I wouldn't if I were you, unless you like the idea of sharing with
"IMM" as a killfilemate for the rest of all time! eek!

Hmm, you still have him in there eh?

I might have to start a "support your local troll" campaign.

--
Grunff

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:37:48 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Hmm, you still have him in there eh?

Yes, once I noticed how much quicker it was reading news without that
particular source of input, I decided I preferred it that way. On
balance, a bit of a bargain!

I might have to start a "support your local troll" campaign.

Hmmm.... A Gallows Pole? shrug

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

In message , Gnube
writes
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:37:43 +0100, Grunff wrote:

This is laziness.

One more like that and you're going to be only the second person ever
to enter my kill file! ;O)

I wouldn't if I were you, unless you like the idea of sharing with
"IMM" as a killfilemate for the rest of all time! eek!


And I always ignore top posted requests for information (unless it's an
obvious newbie who doesn't know better)
--
geoff

In article ,
"Dave" wrote:


Just a thought..... plainly mixed top/bottom isn't going to work,
wouldn't it all actually be more logical for everyone to top-post? The
fresh info would then be instantly visible and anyone that wants to see
the history can start reading from the bottom.

No, because as various people have demonstrated the flow will not be
logical. And it will also make it very difficult to interleave and if
nobody did that telling what was being replied to would be difficult
leading to all sorts of misunderstandings. I trust you have been around
usenet long enough to know what misunderstandings can lead to?

Grunff said that top posting was "lazy", 'don't see where laziness comes
in to it.

Because in some newsreaders (OE in particular I'm told) the cursor is
placed at the top by default. So to bottom post or snip and interleave
requires more work than to simply start typing. In that context it is
lazy. If I am trying to talk to someone and they can't be bothered to
turn around and not mumble I might not bother any more. Similarly with
top posters.

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.

Peter Ashby wrote:

Because in some newsreaders (OE in particular I'm told) the cursor is
placed at the top by default. So to bottom post or snip and interleave

Lesson 1: How to use a keyboard for OE users ;-)

To move to the end of the message: Hold CTRL press END

There..... that was not so bad was it?

(having said that you will want to scroll through the message to snip
all the bits that need removing!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:34:53 +0100, Peter Ashby wrote:

snip

Because in some newsreaders (OE in particular I'm told) the cursor is
placed at the top by default. So to bottom post or snip and interleave
requires more work than to simply start typing.

Of course, the counter argument to that is that the cursor is at the top
so that the poster can move down through the post to which he's replying
snipping and interleaving as necessary.

I just don't buy the argument that the cursor's at the top so it's ok to
top post.

I just don't buy the argument that the cursor's at the top so it's ok to
top post.

I don't buy the argument that you should top post because everyone else
does. As my mother used to say "If everyone else stuck their head in the
fire..." Or consider the American attitude to male circumcision. Just
because a bunch of people do it, the rest follow like sheep.

The issue should be legibility not tradition. Not all of the bottom posters
or snippers/interleavers on this group are the most easy to follow. Good
communication, not good form.

Suzanne

In message , Dave
writes

I too have been using newsgroups in various forms since before the www
(probably 18+ years), in my professional use (a V large IT organisation)
it seems that the minority bottom post, the majority mingle or top post
and AFAIK there's never been a war of words.

Try top posting in uk.rec.motorcycles and see how long it is before
someone turns up at your door with a lead pipe
--
geoff