www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Top posting vs bottom posting

reply Bill Cox <bill viasic.com> writes:
Hi.

I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text 
either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. 
Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

 Here is the third response.
 Here is the first response.
 Here is the original post.





Yuk. Such posts actually exists. I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same? I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts). I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions. Bill
Aug 20 2003
next sibling parent "Philippe Mori" <philippe_mori hotmail.com> writes:
For a "stand-alone" reply, top is probably preferable...

For comments on a post, they should typically be after
the text on which it apply...

 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent.
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 Bill

Aug 20 2003
prev sibling next sibling parent "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:
Well Bill, I see

"Bill Cox" <bill viasic.com> wrote in message
news:bhvsjj$25j4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent.
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

your point, but sometimes it is important to answer several specific parts, whereas other
 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 Bill

times one can simply reply at the bottom. What a conundrum!
Aug 20 2003
prev sibling next sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek.parnell no.spam> writes:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:26:13 -0400 (08/20/03 23:26:13)
, Bill Cox <bill viasic.com> wrote:

 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text 
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine 
 this message was a reply to the follwing:

 Here is the third response.
 Here is the first response.
 Here is the original post.





Yuk. Such posts actually exists. I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same? I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts). I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

I've adopted the method of placing my response directly underneath the subject of my response. Fortunately I tend to us Opera's newsreader (M2) and that color codes the levels of reply so its a LOT easier to see who is replying to what. -- Derek
Aug 20 2003
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Heinz Saathoff <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> writes:
Bill Cox wrote...
 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text 
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. 
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
 
  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.
 
 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

I prefer the reply at the bottom. This is because it's a reply to a message. When reading you first see the original text and then the posters reply. This is the style prefered in german newsgroups. The other style is called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post this way you'll get flamed in german groups.
 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did 
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see 
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually 
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the 
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

That's the way I also prefer. - Heinz
Aug 21 2003
next sibling parent reply Helmut Leitner <helmut.leitner chello.at> writes:
Heinz Saathoff wrote:
 
 Bill Cox wrote...
 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group 


  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

That's the way I also prefer. - Heinz

This group is very tolerant. Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet. Bottom is logical, reader friendly and the standard. So if a discussion should start, then the outcome is predicable. -- Helmut Leitner leitner hls.via.at Graz, Austria www.hls-software.com
Aug 21 2003
next sibling parent "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:
Blame Outlook Express, which defaults the cursor to the top in a reply.
Older mail programs (Netscape) got this right.

Sean

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner chello.at> wrote in message
news:3F44B997.245E63AB chello.at...
 This group is very tolerant.

 Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet.
 Bottom is logical, reader friendly and the standard.

 So if a discussion should start, then the outcome is predicable.

Aug 21 2003
prev sibling parent reply Heinz Saathoff <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> writes:
Helmut Leitner schrieb...
 This group is very tolerant.

Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more tollerant than other interest groups it seems. I subscribe to comp.arch.embedded and find fullquote postings there too but I can't remember a flame posting there.
 Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet.

I'm not so familiar with english groups. I've mostly seen them in german groups. - Heinz
Aug 22 2003
parent Antti =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syk=E4ri?= <jsykari gamma.hut.fi> writes:
In article <MPG.19afde494536970b9896cd news.digitalmars.com>, Heinz
Saathoff wrote:
 Helmut Leitner schrieb...
 This group is very tolerant.

Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more tollerant than other interest groups it seems. I subscribe to comp.arch.embedded and find fullquote postings there too but I can't remember a flame posting there.

Typographical issues seem to be of secondary relevance to most programmers. Probably because of lack of globally accepted coding standards: we are accustomed to seeing programs written with so many kinds of different coding conventions (some of them ugly as hell) that we have become immune to such external annoyances. However, people that spend most of their time reading properly capitalized and formatted text in natural languages have the tendency to be very strict about the rules :) Oh, and of course, this posting is an example of my preferred quoting style: quote as little as possible but as much as it is needed to make the context clear, and trust people to have "read parent message" in their newsreaders if they want to know more. (Does Outlook already have it?) But I occasionally top-post, especially when replying to top-posted messages, so it's not exactly a religious issue. -Antti
Aug 23 2003
prev sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> writes:
Heinz Saathoff wrote:
 The other style is 
 called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post 
 this way you'll get flamed in german groups.

This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should delete it altogether. I didn't ever get flamed for not quoting, but i did for TOFU. :) I believe the fullquote above is much worse than below. So i tend to pick several sentences out of the original message, just to show connection, and try to avoid fullquotes. -eye
Aug 21 2003
next sibling parent Bill Cox <bill viasic.com> writes:
Thanks for all the info.  I'm really not much of a news group reader.

It sounds like bottom-posting wins, and deleting portions of previous 
posts is good.

Bill
Aug 21 2003
prev sibling parent Heinz Saathoff <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> writes:
Ilya Minkov schrieb...
 Heinz Saathoff wrote:
 The other style is 
 called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post 
 this way you'll get flamed in german groups.

This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should delete it altogether.

That's right.
 I didn't ever get flamed for not quoting, but i 
 did for TOFU. :) I believe the fullquote above is much worse than below. 

A fullquote is bad in both cases. Especially if the quote is very long and the reply is only one/two lines. I've seen 200+ lines of fullquote and a single 'Ack' or 'Me too' as reply.
 So i tend to pick several sentences out of the original message, just to 
 show connection, and try to avoid fullquotes.

ACK - Heinz
Aug 22 2003
prev sibling parent "Daniel Yokomiso" <daniel_yokomiso yahoo.com.br> writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Cox" <bill viasic.com>
Newsgroups: D
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: Top posting vs bottom posting


 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent.
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 Bill

Hi, I prefer to use bottom posting, but sometimes I respond in the middle of the post (with a "Comments embedded" warning at the top). IMO there are three kinds of problematic posts: 1 - posts filled with several layers of discussion: they should be snipped once they get too old. Usually only the last two responses are neessary. 2 - Top posting, because they force you to find the replied message, read it, then go to the beginning of the email and read the answer. 3 - "Me too" replies, except on voting. Best regards, Daniel Yokomiso. A: Top-posters. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/8/2003
Aug 24 2003