Searching \ for '[OT] Top posting Bottom posting' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=top+posting+bottom
Search entire site for: 'Top posting Bottom posting'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Top posting Bottom posting'
2008\10\21@234137 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
I like top posting.... others like bottom posting.  I love reading  
backwards ( especially novels )
I think you just have to go with the flow or admit everyone is wrong.
Michael

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\10\23@231402 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
OE ate the [OT] tag, sorry...

Chris McSweeny wrote:
> I've been bottom posting since you asked, but don't actually see why it's
> such a big deal - unless you're wanting to reply to specific points one by
> one, as opposed to just quoting the original post for context. IMO it's
> just
> what you're used to more than anything - with our work intranet newsgroups
> the convention is to top post, so I've got pretty used to it, and don't
> really find it a drag at all, and as you say it's easier (my mail client
> wants me to write at the top). If there's a need to reply to individual
> points, then our convention on those NGs is to use the keyword "inline" at
> the top, and then bottom post with replies interspersed as necessary, but
> personally I actually find that more cumbersome unless it's really needed,
> so try to avoid it.
>
> Exactly why is that harder to read than if I'd quoted the post I'm
> replying
> to which you'd already read (or written) at the top? You'd just have to
> skip
> over it before getting to the part of interest.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

I top-post for personal and business email. IMHO, for mailing lists bottom
posting is more appropriate (for the record, I'm not an "old Usenet user",
I'm relatively new to mailing lists and newsgroups).

I think the difference is that with email and intranet everyone is expected
to follow the entire thread. With a maling list or a forum, you should be
able to jump in at any time, and get the relevant context.

Notice that you very rarely see people complain about bottom posting. But
there are many people who find top posting annoying.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Vitaliy

2008\10\24@073614 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
Now that's a strawman argument if ever I've seen one.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Vitaliy <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:

> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


Note that in this context, to make my point you have to read my comment
before reading the quoted text, hence top-posting is very definitely most
appropriate (though in a sense I'm inline posting here).

Chris

2008\10\24@074549 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Chris McSweeny
> Sent: 24 October 2008 12:36
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] Top posting Bottom posting
>
> Now that's a strawman argument if ever I've seen one.
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Vitaliy <.....spamKILLspamspam.....maksimov.org> wrote:
>
> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > A: Top-posting.
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>
> Note that in this context, to make my point you have to read my
comment
> before reading the quoted text, hence top-posting is very definitely
most
> appropriate (though in a sense I'm inline posting here).
>

I don't really understand your argument here; you posted a comment
regarding someone else's post, what is the difference in context if a
third party reads the original post or your post first (except the
former makes more logical sense).

If you are addressing multiple specific points in someone's post then it
makes sense to me to add a line to the top indicating your comments are
nested into the original post.  However, this does tend to get very
messy after a few replies.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2008\10\24@084852 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
I prefer top posting usually since first it's the subject that gets my
attention, and almost always that would be a thread that I have been
following and am familiar with all the previous messages. Then then new
material is at the top, and I don't have to scroll to near the bottom to
see the latest which is a time saver.

Usually only if it is a new thread with more than 1 or 2 points, I may
insert my comments in the middle of the previous text where they can be
identified with that and keep the thoughts together. Generally by the
time of the 2nd or 3rd message of a thread, the topic is narrowed down
to 1 or maybe 2 items and I prefer top posting. :)

Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
>  
>> {Original Message removed}

2008\10\24@125533 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
> ( snip )
>
> Notice that you very rarely see people complain about bottom  
> posting. But
> there are many people who find top posting annoying.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> Vitaliy

1)  i DISLIKE bottom bottom posting
2)  Chris McSweeney LIKES top posting
Michael


2008\10\24@154032 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Michael Algernon <EraseMEpicspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnope9.com> wrote:
>
> 2)  Chris McSweeney LIKES top posting
>

I wouldn't quote go that far - I like using the appropriate place, and
sometimes it's the top, sometimes it's the bottom, depending on whether or
not you're replying directly to something quoted. I dislike bottom posting
just because some rule says you have to.

Then again I also like people spelling my name correctly :-)

2008\10\24@180729 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Carl Denk wrote:
> I prefer top posting usually since first it's the subject that gets my
> attention, and almost always that would be a thread that I have been
> following and am familiar with all the previous messages.

You must read very few selected threads, then. I usually get a "digest" of
the topics I have some interest in, by reading replies by people I know and
whose opinion I respect.


> Then then new
> material is at the top, and I don't have to scroll to near the bottom to
> see the latest which is a time saver.

That is a bad argument, because bottom posting should go hand in hand with
trimming.

Vitaliy

2008\10\24@181327 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Chris McSweeny wrote:
> I wouldn't quote go that far - I like using the appropriate place, and
> sometimes it's the top, sometimes it's the bottom, depending on whether or
> not you're replying directly to something quoted. I dislike bottom posting
> just because some rule says you have to.

I'm not arguing for following rules for the sake of following rules. As far
as I am concerned, it's about not being lazy, and respecting other people
when I post.

When someone fails to trim five pages' worth of previous comments, it
doesn't matter that they're putting their comments at the bottom. It shows
that they either don't know any better, or that they are deliberately being
disrespectful of the people who read their reply.

Vitaliy

2008\10\24@182529 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
>
> On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Chris McSweeny wrote:
> Then again I also like people spelling my name correctly :-)

I have fallen on my sword
Michael


 WFT Electronics
Denver, CO   720 222 1309
" dent the UNIVERSE "

All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT  
Electronics ( and it's principals ),  that are included with this  
signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as  
of the date of this communication .

2008\10\24@195811 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Chris McSweeny <cpmcsweenyspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

>
> I wouldn't quote go that far - I like using the appropriate place, and
> sometimes it's the top, sometimes it's the bottom, depending on whether or
> not you're replying directly to something quoted. I dislike bottom posting
> just because some rule says you have to.
>
+1 to this.

I find many people will top post in one on one exchanges (they are
often quoting the entire message because they think it covers their
ass) which works fine because the other person already knows the
context

They carry one on one habits through to mailing lists which can be
problematic because sometimes they will quote too much or not enough
or post in the wrong place.

If you are asking for help you have a better chance of getting it if
you post in a way that is easy for your target audience to work with.

If you are giving someone advice, you should try to post in a way
that is easiest for your target audience to work with.

Bottom line is to consider your target audience when posting.
Don't choose to top post or bottom post just because you are lazy.
If 1000 people read your message and it takes them 11 seconds longer
to read it because of the way you have posted - you've wasted over 3
hours of people's time.

Thanks, John

2008\10\24@204244 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
How much of people's time have we wasted arguing about whether we should top
or bottom post? :-)

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:58 AM, John La Rooy <@spam@piclist.jlrKILLspamspamlarooy.com>wrote:
>
> If 1000 people read your message and it takes them 11 seconds longer
> to read it because of the way you have posted - you've wasted over 3
> hours of people's time.
>

2008\10\24@213119 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 24, 2008, at 4:58 PM, John La Rooy wrote:

> sometimes it's the top, sometimes it's the bottom,


All things considered, drastically editing your included text, so that  
only as much as is really needed is included, will make either top OR  
bottom posting much more pleasant to read...

BillW

2008\10\24@214904 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
Though it's bad form to edit the included text so much that the attributions
are wrong!

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:30 AM, William Chops Westfield <KILLspamwestfwKILLspamspammac.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\10\24@231041 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Chris McSweeny wrote:
> How much of people's time have we wasted arguing about whether we should
> top
> or bottom post? :-)

It's like saying that teaching your kids proper table manners is a waste of
time.

If this thread causes just one person to be more considerate of others when
posting, it was well worth the time.

Vitaliy

2008\10\24@235849 by Neil Cherry

flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

> All things considered, drastically editing your included text, so that  
> only as much as is really needed is included, will make either top OR  
> bottom posting much more pleasant to read...

Actually trimming is often more important to me than top vs. bottom
posting. There are more than a few times I've canceled a reply
because the OP made it difficult (ie they were too lazy to
trim/bottom post). Very seldom will I reply to the OP if I consider
them to be lazy. I have replied to those who I respect but have been
appeared lazy. Usually they have proven that they are not lazy by
other methods. Lets face it our currency is information and we only
trade it when we some reciprocal value in the trade. The tendency
is that those who are too lazy to spend the time and effort to
offer the common courtesy of a little effort are probably only
here for their own benefit.

I wonder if others feel the same. Of course none of this matters
if I don't have the answers or my opinions hold no value but I
can't be the sole judge of that.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       RemoveMEncherryTakeThisOuTspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\10\25@001918 by Jinx

face picon face
> Actually trimming is often more important to me
>
> I wonder if others feel the same

I do. Many replies could be trimmed considerably. A bottom post
starting with a mountain of quoted text that just goes on and on will
probably go in the bin unless there's some real reason to get to the
bottom

2008\10\25@031201 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:
>> Actually trimming is often more important to me
>>
>> I wonder if others feel the same
>
> I do. Many replies could be trimmed considerably. A bottom post
> starting with a mountain of quoted text that just goes on and on will
> probably go in the bin unless there's some real reason to get to the
> bottom

I hear ya, although you'd have to agree that one certainly helps the other.
Count how many times the standard signature appears in the average
"top-posted" post, versus a "bottom-posted" post. The ratio is not in favor
of the former.

Top posting is the path of least resistance, and so is not trimming the
text.

Vitaliy

2008\10\25@054508 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

>> Then then new material is at the top, and I don't have to scroll to near
>> the bottom to see the latest which is a time saver.
>
> That is a bad argument, because bottom posting should go hand in hand with
> trimming.

Ah, but so should top posting!

For all the quick top posters (by "quick" I mean just writing a phrase at
the top of the message when replying): please go the extra step and read
/all/ of the message that you're replying to. If it looks like it's too
much to read before replying, it's probably too much to send and should be
trimmed :)

Gerhard

2008\10\25@093920 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
It almost feels like throwing more wood on the fire, but
this thread won't seem to die anyway...

>> All things considered, drastically editing your included text,
>> so that only as much as is really needed is included

> Actually trimming is often more important

Way more important.  I don't care if it's top or bottom posting
as long as the 10,000 lines of multiple previous signatures,
legal boilerplate, piclist footers, etc, etc have been removed!


> Though it's bad form to edit the included text so much that
> the attributions are wrong!

I think the attributions can be removed completely.  I just
want a minimal amount of previous text to jog my memory as to
thread context.  More like a conversation...

                                               Lee Jones

2008\10\25@111119 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
Yes, but in the post to which I wrote that reply, I was wondering if the
person who seemed to be attributed really wrote what they seemed to have -
it involved extra effort for me to go back and find out that actually I
wrote it! The situation wouldn't have been much better with no attribution,
as I'd probably have still wondered if I wrote the quoted text and had to go
back and check. The issue with the case in point is that too much of the
context had also been removed (otherwise I might have recognized my own
writing).

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Lee Jones <spamBeGoneleespamBeGonespamfrumble.claremont.edu>wrote:

> > Though it's bad form to edit the included text so much that
> > the attributions are wrong!
>
> I think the attributions can be removed completely.  I just
> want a minimal amount of previous text to jog my memory as to
> thread context.  More like a conversation...
>

2008\10\26@233545 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Vitaliy <TakeThisOuTspamEraseMEspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
>
> I top-post for personal and business email.

Me too. That is more convenient and more appropriate in many cases
and due to the email clients used (Outlook or Lotus Notes).

> IMHO, for mailing lists bottom
> posting is more appropriate (for the record, I'm not an "old Usenet user",
> I'm relatively new to mailing lists and newsgroups).

This is the conclusion I came to after a super-long discussion who bored
many PIClist readers to death...

> I think the difference is that with email and intranet everyone is expected
> to follow the entire thread. With a maling list or a forum, you should be
> able to jump in at any time, and get the relevant context.
>
> Notice that you very rarely see people complain about bottom posting. But
> there are many people who find top posting annoying.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Want to review the long thread back in 2005? ;-)
http://www.nabble.com/-EE--Top-posting%2C-is-it-really-that-bad--to1643191.html


Xiaofan

2008\10\27@025959 by Vitaliy
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Want to review the long thread back in 2005? ;-)
> http://www.nabble.com/-EE--Top-posting%2C-is-it-really-that-bad--to1643191.html

Hm, I do remember that thread, and I'm surprised to see that I didn't take a
part in it. :)

I believe the conversation that convinced me to start bottom-posting, took
place about 2-3 years earlier.

Vitaliy

2008\10\27@035255 by Forrest W Christian

flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> All things considered, drastically editing your included text, so that
> only as much as is really needed is included, will make either top OR
> bottom posting much more pleasant to read...
Agreed....

I've been posting on usenet and mailing lists since early 1992 (before
the web), and I am almost always "exerpt and reply" bottom poster.  
That is, trimming the original message and then replying to it at the
bottom, or interleaving my responses with the original message.

Recently, I've started to top-reply in those cases where the amount of
text I would have to include to provide sufficient context would move my
first reply "below the fold".    These are typically business mails
where someone has sent me something big to approve or similar, so
ensuring adequate context is important.   Occasionally I'll top post to
a mailing list thread, but not very often.

My personal peeve are bottom posters who don't bother to edit, so you
have to scroll way down to the bottom to read.   This is, in my book,
*much worse* than top posting.   If you're not going to bother to trim
the message, but you are still going to send a reply, by all means top
post.  At least I don't have to look for your reply in the message.   If
I have to *hunt* for your reply, then I'm not going to bother reading it.

-forrest

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...