Thread: top posting?
Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time:
> (*please* stop top-posting).
I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll, often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original material.
The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post.
Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over and over in each thread.
How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" idea?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.)
Craig
> (*please* stop top-posting).
I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll, often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original material.
The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post.
Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over and over in each thread.
How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" idea?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.)
Craig
On 6 May 2013 20:15, Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time:
> (*please* stop top-posting).
I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll, often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original material.
The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post.
Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over and over in each thread.
How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" idea?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.)
Craig
Hi Craig,
That's strange. I've never met any newsgroup which would require top posting. Top posting has always been considered rude.
We are reading from top to bottom. That's why people should answer below cited text, so we can read it later normally. I mean that I should read first the part of email you answer to, and than below your answer.
regards
Szymon
Craig James wrote: > Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages > of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... > it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over > and over in each thread. > > How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" > idea? I think the intended strategy is basically what you outlined above, with inline responses interspersed with trimmed quotes. I think we ended up with bottom posting below gigantic quotes because of certain webmail systems' idea (particularly Gmail) that "hiding" the quoted part within a clickable ellipsis is a great invention. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time: > >> (*please* stop top-posting). > > I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never > encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting > has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll, > often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original > material. > > The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to > briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* > quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and > bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if > it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post. > > Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages > of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom > ... > it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over > and over in each thread. > > How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" > idea? > > (I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.) > Prefer a brief note of what this issue, to follow in him. And not I have to go elsewhere to find out whether or not interest me the news, avoid to nuisance. Saludos, Gilberto Castillo La Habana, Cuba --- This message was processed by Kaspersky Mail Gateway 5.6.28/RELEASE running at host imx3.etecsa.cu Visit our web-site: <http://www.kaspersky.com>, <http://www.viruslist.com>
Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> writes:
> I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never
> encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting
> has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll,
> often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original
> material.
Quoting entire messages is rude, IMO, no matter where you attach your
comments. What is respectful of your readers' time is to quote just
enough to remind them what you're responding to. And once you do that,
it's more natural to append your responses after what you're responding
to.
I'm aware that there are a whole lot of people nowadays who don't get
this element of email etiquette, or who use tools that make it hard
to do things that way (suggesting that the tool authors don't get it
either). But that's what's been considered good style for about
three decades, in my book.
> The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to
> briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly*
> quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and
> bottom-post after the quoted text.
I think we're on the same page, actually, except for the brief-summary
bit. I'm not sure that a brief summary without context is really all
that efficient or intelligible. It's probably a tenable approach if
there's only a few threads going on at a time, but how often is that a
good assumption? I guess in an ideal world the Subject: line would
provide enough context ... but people aren't terribly good about picking
good subjects to start with, and they're positively bad about adjusting
the Subject: when the thread diverges into sub-topics.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:15:09AM -0700, Craig James wrote: > Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time: > > > (*please* stop top-posting). top posting is just lazy. bottom posting, equally so. one should be replying in-line, with context, and removing extraneous content. > The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to > briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* > quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and > bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if > it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post. summarizing your thoughts at the top of the post, and then leaving the remainder intact, untouched, is just plain laziness, and shows your contempt for the reader. > > Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages > of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... i find that top posting is far more prevalent than bottom posting, but both are just signs of laziness. --jim -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 08:25:25PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote: > We are reading from top to bottom. That's why people should answer below cited > text, so we can read it later normally. I mean that I should read first the > part of email you answer to, and than below your answer. > > http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html I think in-line commenting or trimming the text above to show just the part you are responding to is the greatest benefit for bottom posting. If you are _not_ doing that, there is probably little value to bottom-posting. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:25:25PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote: > That's strange. I've never met any newsgroup which would require top > posting. Top posting has always been considered rude. > > We are reading from top to bottom. That's why people should answer below > cited text, so we can read it later normally. I mean that I should read > first the part of email you answer to, and than below your answer. i find bottom posting to be moderately more annoying than top posting. top posters are basically: i'm too lazy to spend any time editting, so i'll just toss my comments at the top, because my time is more important than anyone else's. bottom posters are basically: i'm too lazy to remove irrelevant content, but, just to be pedantic, i'll add my comments to the bottom. personally, i'll read top posts, and be a bit irritated. bottom posts, i'll generally skip because the author obviously doesn't value their own words. --jim -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Szymon Guz <mabewlun@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly. That's why the very FIRST thing you read should be relevant instead of a bunch of quoted text that the poster was too lazy to edit.
My real gripe is with laziness, not bottom posting. Anyone who can't spend a minute to edit quoted material to the relevant part is forcing thousands of readers to wade through irrelevant crap. It's inconsiderate.
Claims that "top post " or "bottom post" is better miss the point. The real issue has nothing to do with top- or bottom-posting. It's about relevance, effective editing, and paraphrasing.
Notice that I manage to make my point here, and to quote only the relevant bits of your email, within the first twenty lines. That means you can read it without scrolling, and decide whether to click "delete", or continue on to read this paragraph, which may be more wordy and reiterate points made in the first part. You didn't have to wade through stuff that you'd already read before deciding that this long and wordy paragraph, which is mostly fluff and irrelevant reiteration of points already made, was of any interest to you. You already got the important bits. ;-). Now you can click "delete."
On 6 May 2013 20:15, Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> wrote:Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time:
> (*please* stop top-posting).We are reading from top to bottom. That's why people should answer below cited text, so we can read it later normally. I mean that I should read first the part of email you answer to, and than below your answer.
Exactly. That's why the very FIRST thing you read should be relevant instead of a bunch of quoted text that the poster was too lazy to edit.
My real gripe is with laziness, not bottom posting. Anyone who can't spend a minute to edit quoted material to the relevant part is forcing thousands of readers to wade through irrelevant crap. It's inconsiderate.
Claims that "top post " or "bottom post" is better miss the point. The real issue has nothing to do with top- or bottom-posting. It's about relevance, effective editing, and paraphrasing.
Notice that I manage to make my point here, and to quote only the relevant bits of your email, within the first twenty lines. That means you can read it without scrolling, and decide whether to click "delete", or continue on to read this paragraph, which may be more wordy and reiterate points made in the first part. You didn't have to wade through stuff that you'd already read before deciding that this long and wordy paragraph, which is mostly fluff and irrelevant reiteration of points already made, was of any interest to you. You already got the important bits. ;-). Now you can click "delete."
Craig
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:55:41AM -0700, Craig James wrote: > My real gripe is with laziness, not bottom posting. Anyone who can't spend a > minute to edit quoted material to the relevant part is forcing thousands of > readers to wade through irrelevant crap. It's inconsiderate. How about sentences containing $SUBJECT because the poster can't be bothered to actually state their topic as part of the sentence? I usually ignore those too. Oh, and people posting to multiple email lists. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Szymon Guz, 06.05.2013 20:25: > That's strange. I've never met any newsgroup which would require top > posting. Top posting has always been considered rude. > > We are reading from top to bottom. That's why people should answer > below cited text, so we can read it later normally. I mean that I > should read first the part of email you answer to, and than below > your answer. > With a newsreader that show threads instead of individual messages it's easier to read a top-post answer because you don't need to scroll down. You just click on the question, read it, click on the first answer, the answer is right there at the top, click on the next and so on. But I do understand that for someone who wants to understand a reply without reading the previous post, bottom posting is more natural. I personally don't really care, but what I really find annoying are bottom posters that do not trim the quoted message - especially if the original message was quite long.
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:20:30PM +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > With a newsreader that show threads instead of individual messages it's easier > to read a top-post answer because you don't need to scroll down. it is important to note that people use a variety of tools to read mailing lists, newsgroups, forums, RSS, etc. spending a little time to clean up your message, making it terse, but not cryptic, will go a long way to preventing people from thinking you are a dumbass. 8^) --jim -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
Regarding top posting versus bottom posting, pretty almost everyone who has commented agrees that top versus bottom posting isn't the problem. It's laziness about editing, perhaps exacerbated by certain email systems that encourage that laziness.
So how about this: instead of demanding "PLEASE DON'T TOP POST," why not suggest, "PLEASE EDIT FOR BREVITY (and keep your comments in context by bottom posting)."
It really would improve these Postgres conversations.
Cheers,
Craig
(... and this illustrates the art of paraphrasing. In many instances, a quick paraphrase summarizing the issue is far better than quoting.)
So how about this: instead of demanding "PLEASE DON'T TOP POST," why not suggest, "PLEASE EDIT FOR BREVITY (and keep your comments in context by bottom posting)."
It really would improve these Postgres conversations.
Cheers,
Craig
(... and this illustrates the art of paraphrasing. In many instances, a quick paraphrase summarizing the issue is far better than quoting.)
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote: > I personally don't really care, but what I really find annoying are bottom > posters > that do not trim the quoted message - especially if the original message was > quite long. Especially if there are dozens of untrimmed quotes above THAT. My basic rules are: 1: If context isn't important I top post (i.e. if they've posted to 18 mailing lists, I will top post "Please stop spamming every list in the known universe" at the top. Or stuff like "please post pg version, postgresql.conf changes, and OS etc.") 2: If a long complex explanation is needed, and it's an answer to the whole post, I bottom post. 3: If it's a big multi-part question / post, I'll answer inline for each bit.
On Monday, May 6, 2013, Craig James wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time:
> (*please* stop top-posting).
I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll, often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original material.
The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post.
Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over and over in each thread.
How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" idea?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.)
Craig
Hi,
I was curious as well about this topic...
I am the one who also be asked (please stop top-posting). And I did - just to respect the rule in community...
But, IMO it is something totally irrelevant now-days... With today tools... I understand why such thing has been important 20-30 years ago (in previous century)
Cheers,
Misa
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Misa Simic <misa.simic@gmail.com> wrote: > But, IMO it is something totally irrelevant now-days... With today tools... > I understand why such thing has been important 20-30 years ago (in previous > century) You're assuming we all use the same tools. There are still people on this who (probably) read their email with pine.
On 07/05/13 04:15, Craig James wrote: > Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time: > >> (*please* stop top-posting). So people can... > I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never > encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom > posting has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to > scroll, often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of > original material. ...dissect... > The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is > to briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to > *briefly* quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are > replying, and bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader > quickly see if it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post. ...and comment... > Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five > pages of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the > bottom ... it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the > same stuff over and over in each thread. ..where appropriate and... > How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" > idea? ---------------SNIP--------------- ...*snip* where appropriate. I actually prefer it as it linear in reference to time. I top post for FWD. Regards, Jules.
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Misa Simic <misa.simic@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, IMO it is something totally irrelevant now-days... With today tools...
> I understand why such thing has been important 20-30 years ago (in previous
> century)
You're assuming we all use the same tools. There are still people on
this who (probably) read their email with pine.
I agree. But on the end I said "bottom posting requires a bit bigger effort to writer - but it is not that big deal if it makes anyone else happy...". So just to respect people "who (probably) read their email with pine." - I do bottom post. Who use todays tools - to them there is no difference in reading... Just measuring those two facts made bottom post winner to me...
It is funny - i have read many times in the (just) pg lists said to someone else "please don't top posting" (with link to article with explanations). I havent understood, but it was not related to topic so i made conclusion it is not relevant and i never clicked to read article about it...
Then i got private message...
When i have been asked to don't top posting, i wondered (and made research):
-what does it mean!? (Then read article about it)
(-i haven't understood article on first reading... Simply how i read messages in lists - doesnt match article story)
-how anyone noticed it !?
-then asked myself "how it is possible that just me breaks that strange rule"!? And started research - concluded: well known pg names - follow the rule - 70% not that well known names (to me) - no - so I was happy I am not the only one :)
-then asked for tools
-then tried the one - and realised problems...(and understood article in that moment)
On Mon, 05/06/2013 05:51:00 PM Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Misa Simic <misa.simic@gmail.com> wrote: > > But, IMO it is something totally irrelevant now-days... With today > > tools... > > I understand why such thing has been important 20-30 years ago (in > > previous > > century) > > You're assuming we all use the same tools. There are still people on > this who (probably) read their email with pine. I understand that there's purists out there, but seriously, pine? I stopped using that when I had the first SPARC2 sitting on my desk and I can't even remember when that was (1991?). Never liked pine, always used emacs (and still do, just not for reading mail :-) ) Personally I prefer top posts for short responses to a simple issue and in- between posts for everything more complex. Sadly we live in a time where California already abandoned grammar and handwriting in school and a lot of people don't have the attention span to follow or comprehend anything beyond 128 characters. I guess in the near future I'll be happy to read a whole sentence or - gasp - an entire paragraph; no matter where it's posted. So for me, either way is fine. I'll just post where others on the list want it. It's often easier to simply follow the community in these minor issues. Nobody wants grumpy people and if bottom posting makes them happy and I get a qualified answer to one of my problems, then bottom posting it is :-) Keep in mind: the advise here is free, so humor those who give it freely...
On 7 May 2013 03:54, Uwe Schroeder <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05/06/2013 05:51:00 PM Scott Marlowe wrote:I understand that there's purists out there, but seriously, pine? I stopped
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Misa Simic <misa.simic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But, IMO it is something totally irrelevant now-days... With today
> > tools...
> > I understand why such thing has been important 20-30 years ago (in
> > previous
> > century)
>
> You're assuming we all use the same tools. There are still people on
> this who (probably) read their email with pine.
using that when I had the first SPARC2 sitting on my desk and I can't even
remember when that was (1991?). Never liked pine, always used emacs (and still
do, just not for reading mail :-) )
Personally I prefer top posts for short responses to a simple issue and in-
between posts for everything more complex.
And then, when some people will top post, som bottom post and some will answer inside the original email lines, then there will be a totall mess and most people will have problems to find out how the discussion flow looks like.
- Szymon
Hi,
Personally I prefer top posts for short responses to a simple issue and in-
between posts for everything more complex.And then, when some people will top post, som bottom post and some will answer inside the original email lines, then there will be a totall mess and most people will have problems to find out how the discussion flow looks like.
You're both right - so can we put this to bed now?
It is impossible to have a single style that will suit all and will make it easy to read all possible discussions in the same way.
I am pretty sure that whatever reader they use, everyone can cope with messages that are as short as reasonably possible and contain just relevant text, whether new or quoted - and there seems to be a consensus that this is what is important, not whether your comments are at the top or bottom.
Thanks,
Robin
I don't agree. Yes. Perhaps. Now, it's your work to know to what part of your original mail I'm answering. But, when you reply, the parts not relevant in the conversation should be erased. On Mon, 6 May 2013 11:15:09 -0700 Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> wrote: > Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time: > > > (*please* stop top-posting). > > I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never > encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting > has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll, > often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original > material. > > The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to > briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly* > quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and > bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if > it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post. > > Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages > of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ... > it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over > and over in each thread. > > How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post" > idea? > > (I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.) > > Craig --- --- Eduardo Morras <emorrasg@yahoo.es>
On 5/6/2013 2:15 PM, Craig James wrote: > Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time: > > > (*please* stop top-posting). > > I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never > encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom > posting has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to > scroll, often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of > original material. > > The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is > to briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to > *briefly* quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are > replying, and bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader > quickly see if it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post. > > Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five > pages of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the > bottom ... it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the > same stuff over and over in each thread. > > How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom > post" idea? > > (I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.) > > Craig I always feel good when I see this post, it means I've been following a mailing list for a (relatively) long time... It doesn't matter to me at all, I just go with whatever is generally accepted by the mailing list (or perhaps, whatever is generally accepted by the most vocal part of the mailing list). Although, I only ever really did the whole "inline snippets" thing when I'm tearing someone up in a flame war. Most other replies don't require the precision-quoting. Currently I'm using Thunderbird, a web page, or various mobile apps to check my email, and all of them mark the quoted part well enough that I can skip it and see what is new, or read it knowing full well it is a quote. Haven't done text-only email for ages, but even back then I believe there were markings in the margin for what was a quote and what was new content. -- Stephen
It doesn't matter to me at all, I just go with whatever is generally accepted by the mailing list (or perhaps, whatever is generally accepted by the most vocal part of the mailing list). Although, I only ever really did the whole "inline snippets" thing when I'm tearing someone up in a flame war. Most other replies don't require the precision-quoting.
To be honest, what annoys me far more than someone putting a reply in the wrong place is when I get 30 emails from a list that generally provides an average of about 8 a day replying to a guy trolling on about a 20-year-old argument
.
Can we put it to bed now please?
Geoff
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:37:07AM -0400, Stephen Cook wrote: > Most other replies don't require the precision-quoting. i read this as: most other replies are so far below my dignity, you don't deserve that much of my attention. unless, of course, you piss me off, then i will put on my magic email ettiquette hat, and spend significant amounts of time formatting my responses, precisely so that you feel the full brunt of my anger. yeah, that makes sense. 8^( -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"