Thread: [GENERAL] Top posting....

Slightly unrelated...

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Gavin Flower
<GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> It is normal on this list not to top post, but rather to add comments at the
> end (so people can see the context) - though interspersed comments in the
> body of the text is okay when appropriate!

I'd rather say interspersed comments with the TRIMMED text body is the
appropiate thing to do. Bottom posting ( edited ) being a particular
case of that when only a single topic/question is being answered.

Full quoting ( I mean the people which even quotes others signatures )
is especially ugly, combined with top posting I feel it as insulting (
to me it feels as 'you do not deserve me taking time to edit a bit and
make things clear' ) ( but well, I started when all the university
multiplexed over a 9600bps link, so I may be a bit extreme on this )

Regards.
Francisco Olarte.

Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com> writes:
> Slightly unrelated...
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
>> It is normal on this list not to top post, but rather to add comments at the
>> end (so people can see the context) - though interspersed comments in the
>> body of the text is okay when appropriate!

> I'd rather say interspersed comments with the TRIMMED text body is the
> appropiate thing to do.

Absolutely.  The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate
the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that.  The point
is to *briefly* remind readers what it is that you're responding to.
If you can't be brief, you are disrespecting your readers by wasting their
time. They've probably already read the earlier part of the thread anyway.

Personally, when I've scrolled down through a couple of pages of quoted
and re-quoted text and see no sign of it ending any time soon, I tend
to stop reading.

Another point is to please put a blank line or so between quoted text
and your own comment.  If you don't provide that visual separation,
you're again making it hard for readers to find what you're adding.

Getting a bit more philosophical: top-posting and not bothering to
trim the quoted material actually work fine together.  You're putting
more cognitive burden on the readers if they don't already remember
what the discussion is, but if you're responding to a five-minute-old
message that probably isn't an issue.  The trim-quotes-and-reply-below
style evolved for discussions that might last over days, where readers
can benefit from a quick reminder.  Bottom posting without trimming
is just an awful combination: whatever you do, don't do that.

            regards, tom lane

On 12/05/17 05:04, Francisco Olarte wrote:
> Slightly unrelated...
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
>> It is normal on this list not to top post, but rather to add comments at the
>> end (so people can see the context) - though interspersed comments in the
>> body of the text is okay when appropriate!
> I'd rather say interspersed comments with the TRIMMED text body is the
> appropiate thing to do. Bottom posting ( edited ) being a particular
> case of that when only a single topic/question is being answered.
>
> Full quoting ( I mean the people which even quotes others signatures )
> is especially ugly, combined with top posting I feel it as insulting (
> to me it feels as 'you do not deserve me taking time to edit a bit and
> make things clear' ) ( but well, I started when all the university
> multiplexed over a 9600bps link, so I may be a bit extreme on this )
>
> Regards.
> Francisco Olarte.

Yes I should have mentioned trimming - but in my defence, I did using
trimming in my reply!

I started using the internet when I had a 2400 bps modem, in 1990.

I introduced the use of "[...]" to replace the then common "[ omitted ]"
which was being used in usenet - my very small part in Internet history.


Cheers,
Gavin

On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:43:52 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

>... The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate
>the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that.  The point
>is to *briefly* remind readers what it is that you're responding to.
>If you can't be brief, you are disrespecting your readers by wasting their
>time. They've probably already read the earlier part of the thread anyway.

Search engines often land in the middle of a conversation.  Quoted
material needs to establish sufficient context for the response to
make sense.

On many occasions, a search has landed me on some site where it was
difficult to navigate threads starting from the middle.

I know we're talking about Usenet here, and Google Groups isn't too
awful[*] when approached strictly as a Usenet archive ... but proper
posting etiquette applies to other discussion mediums as well.


>Personally, when I've scrolled down through a couple of pages of quoted
>and re-quoted text and see no sign of it ending any time soon, I tend
>to stop reading.

I agree 100%.  But excessive brevity can make it so a reader can't
follow the conversation.  Users of web forums often assume *you* can
easily look back up the thread because *they* can.  In my experience,
it isn't always easy to do.


YMMV,
George

[*] where is a "gagging" emoji when you really need one?

George Neuner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:43:52 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> wrote:

> >Personally, when I've scrolled down through a couple of pages of quoted
> >and re-quoted text and see no sign of it ending any time soon, I tend
> >to stop reading.
>
> I agree 100%.  But excessive brevity can make it so a reader can't
> follow the conversation.  Users of web forums often assume *you* can
> easily look back up the thread because *they* can.  In my experience,
> it isn't always easy to do.

Fortunately, we (postgresql.org) have set up our mailing list archives
so that it _is_ possible to look back entire threads.  Our archives have
proven time and again an extremely valuable resource, and we pride on
their quality and completeness (and the fact that we never ever break
links even when the website is rewritten).  There is always full context
in these lists, if you need it.

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> George Neuner wrote:
>> I agree 100%.  But excessive brevity can make it so a reader can't
>> follow the conversation.  Users of web forums often assume *you* can
>> easily look back up the thread because *they* can.  In my experience,
>> it isn't always easy to do.

> Fortunately, we (postgresql.org) have set up our mailing list archives
> so that it _is_ possible to look back entire threads.  Our archives have
> proven time and again an extremely valuable resource, and we pride on
> their quality and completeness (and the fact that we never ever break
> links even when the website is rewritten).

Amen to the value.  Thanks to those who've made this happen.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane schrieb am 11.05.2017 um 19:43:
> Bottom posting without trimming is just an awful combination:
> whatever you do, don't do that.
Amen to that.

George:

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:23 AM, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:

> I agree 100%.  But excessive brevity can make it so a reader can't
> follow the conversation.  Users of web forums often assume *you* can
> easily look back up the thread because *they* can.  In my experience,
> it isn't always easy to do.

Excessive = too much, normally implies bad things.

Francisco Olarte.

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:43:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Absolutely.  The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate
> the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that.  The point
> is to *briefly* remind readers what it is that you're responding to.
> If you can't be brief, you are disrespecting your readers by wasting their
> time. They've probably already read the earlier part of the thread anyway.

Totally agree, and I am seeing non-trimmed bottom posts more often on
the hackers list than I used to.  I am thinking someone needs to start a
hackers thread about that.

Amen to the usability of the archives with no thread breaks --- I am
sure that was not easy.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:43:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Absolutely.  The point of quoting previous messages is not to replicate
>> the entire thread in each message; we have archives for that.  The point
>> is to *briefly* remind readers what it is that you're responding to.
>> If you can't be brief, you are disrespecting your readers by wasting their
>> time. They've probably already read the earlier part of the thread anyway.
>
> Totally agree, and I am seeing non-trimmed bottom posts more often on
> the hackers list than I used to.  I am thinking someone needs to start a
> hackers thread about that.

Yeah I'd rather someone quote NOTHING than just top post with no trimming.