[EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 | Next > |
 |
[EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Chen Xiao Fan
::
Rate this Message:
Actually I am using Outlook 2000 at work and it is
very hard for me not to top-posting when using Outlook 2000 at work. At home I am using Gmail and I find it is still easier to top-post since they leave some blank lines before the quote of the original email. There are people strongly against top-posting. I think this is especially true among some Linux users who religiously believe that top-post is a bad thing. Some of them think bottom-post is also a bad thing. However I can see that more and more people are using top-post and I like it more than other styles. To me it is just a personal preference and it largely depends on the Email client used. Luckily PIClist is dominated by top-posting. ;-) Even if I look at SDCC-user list, half of the posts are using top-posting style. Should the anti-top-posting sentiment just be history? Or is it still justified by some engineering/scientific reasoning? Regards, Xiaofan -----Original Message----- From: piclist-bounces@... Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:26 AM To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Subject: Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98? --Danny, unhappy with this top-posting thing ;) -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Victor Fraenckel
::
Rate this Message:
Smells like another religious war is about to break out!
Vic ________________________________________________________ Victor Fraenckel - The Windman victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com KC2GUI -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Danny Sauer
::
Rate this Message:
Chen wrote regarding '[EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Thu, Nov 24 at 21:07:
> Actually I am using Outlook 2000 at work and it is > very hard for me not to top-posting when using You need to say no more. I use Outlook 2K at work and understand how difficult it is to bottom-post (and trim). I hate Outlook, and that's one of the big reasons. It makes replying a big pain in general. I wish the mail admins would just enable IMAP in Exchange so I could use a good mail program... > Should the anti-top-posting sentiment just be history? > Or is it still justified by some engineering/scientific > reasoning? This has been debated to death everywhere, but just to rehash it once more... :) On a mailing list, where the threads aren't all in the main place where things are read and messages can potentially be dropped or received out of order, it's useful to have context with the message. Only useful context should be included. If context is useful, it's generally useful to read in order. Therefore, bottom posting 1) allows context to be included in order and 2) allows readers who don't care about the context to quickly scan to the end of the message and read just the new part. With top posting and context, the reader needs to scroll to the end, find the beginning of the lowest included part, scroll back down while reading, scroll up to the second included part, scroll down to read it, scroll up to the top of theenext step, scroll down, and generally suffer through a big pain just to get up to speed with the current message. So, if we accept that including context in a reply is good, then bottom-posting makes the most sense. Remove context, and there's no difference between top- and bottom-posting. "But I don't like scrolling just to read the new content." Well, if the context is so annoying, delete it on replies. Top-posting is simply wasting bandwidth by including context which is nearly useless. Besides, only *relevent* context should be included, not the whole multi-page message being replied to. IMHO, of course. :) I'm partial to interlinear replies and/or trimmed bottom-posting replies because they only include as much context as is relevant, and all of the important text in a message is presented in an order which is most easily read. Other people - generally those new to the internet - may feel that wasting bandwidth and putting things in reverse order is the best choice, probably because that's the default for their mail program... Here's the first result for a Google search for "bottom posting": http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Nearly all of the hits are pro-bottom posting. Now search for "Top Posting". Almost all are anti-top posting. I'm not generally one for bandwagon-style propoganda, but really, all those people probably aren't wrong. :) --Danny -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Nate Duehr
::
Rate this Message:
Danny Sauer wrote:
> Chen wrote regarding '[EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Thu, Nov 24 at 21:07: >> Actually I am using Outlook 2000 at work and it is >> very hard for me not to top-posting when using > > You need to say no more. I use Outlook 2K at work and understand how > difficult it is to bottom-post (and trim). I hate Outlook, and that's > one of the big reasons. It makes replying a big pain in general. I > wish the mail admins would just enable IMAP in Exchange so I could use > a good mail program... Nate Typed like it was top-posted for your reading pleasure, What's so hard about that? If you don't feel like cutting anything, just do the last two steps. Start typing. Hit Page Down key. Highlight unnecessary stuff. Hit delete key. You guys need to get used to using keyboard commands. Hi Guys, ----- Hint: Read it backward, bottom-to-top, because that's what top-posting is. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Wayne Topa-3
::
Rate this Message:
Chen Xiao Fan(xiaofan@...) is reported to have said:
> Actually I am using Outlook 2000 at work and it is > very hard for me not to top-posting when using > Outlook 2000 at work. At home I am using Gmail and > I find it is still easier to top-post since they leave > some blank lines before the quote of the original > email. Yes, it is easier to write but not so easy to read and understand what in the OP you are replying to. > > There are people strongly against top-posting. I think > this is especially true among some Linux users who > religiously believe that top-post is a bad thing. > Some of them think bottom-post is also a bad thing. This is the rule on the Debian-user list. The majority do not top post but people new to the list do it. You might notice the replies to those posts, most always, will include a hint Not to Top Post. > However I can see that more and more people are using > top-post and I like it more than other styles. To me > it is just a personal preference and it largely > depends on the Email client used. I don't know the "rules" of piclist but as would like to associate whatever I respond to to whatever the OP wrote, I find it easier to comment below approaite part of the message. (and remove the parts I am not responding to) > Luckily PIClist is dominated by top-posting. ;-) As well as MUA's that either have not been configured correctly to distingush between text of the OP and the response. Or MUA's that don't do threading automaticly or...... > Should the anti-top-posting sentiment just be history? If you can't see how bottom, or context posting helps the reader, then yes. The same is true of top posting a one line reply to a long post and including the complete thread in the reply. That should be history! > Or is it still justified by some engineering/scientific > reasoning? I see no justification for top posting at all, but thats JMHO. Wayne -- Linux helps those who help themselves _______________________________________________________ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Mike Young-2
::
Rate this Message:
In conversation, I rarely repeat what the other person said. In writing, I
include enough to indicate the context of my writing. Do you really read the quoted text? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Van Horn" <dvanhorn@...> > > Bottom. > To > Top > From -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Scott Dattalo
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Xiaofan,
Your original post asks the rhetorical question: "Should top-posting be avoided?". I always avoid top-posting, except perhaps to just make a point. The issue with top-posting is not top-posting per se, but that top-posters often make explicit references to that which they wish to reply. These references are almost always ambiguous and as a result make the reply appear as though the author is a sloppy thinker. Now, I've seen enough of your posts to learn that you're *not* a typical top-poster! So as long as enough context is provided so that the reply is coherent, then reasonable people will have no problem with top-posting. Now, I could've shortened this whole paragraph by just writing: "I agree with you, but most of the time I don't write my messages that way because I mostly use Linux and also I think it makes it hard to understand." Ugh. Did I really just write that... Scott On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:00 +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote: > Actually I am using Outlook 2000 at work and it is > very hard for me not to top-posting when using > Outlook 2000 at work. At home I am using Gmail and > I find it is still easier to top-post since they leave > some blank lines before the quote of the original > email. > > There are people strongly against top-posting. I think > this is especially true among some Linux users who > religiously believe that top-post is a bad thing. > Some of them think bottom-post is also a bad thing. > > However I can see that more and more people are using > top-post and I like it more than other styles. To me > it is just a personal preference and it largely > depends on the Email client used. > > Luckily PIClist is dominated by top-posting. ;-) > Even if I look at SDCC-user list, half of the posts > are using top-posting style. > > Should the anti-top-posting sentiment just be history? > Or is it still justified by some engineering/scientific > reasoning? > > Regards, > Xiaofan > > -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@... > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:26 AM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [PIC] When did MPLAB stop supporting Win98? > > --Danny, unhappy with this top-posting thing ;) > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Nate Duehr
::
Rate this Message:
Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> I like your posting style: context posting. However the email > clients are not making this easier and this is across Linux > and Windows. Few people are using context posting since it > requires more effort on the user' part. I do admire those > who do this. I haven't seen any significant difference in how this works in any e-mail client in many years. I'm not sure what you're referring to about clients making it more difficult. There's only one e-mail client that I know of that makes it difficult and that's only when it's in HTML or rich-text modes. Both of which are rarely necessary to get one's point across. Some really good e-mail clients actually make contextual posting easier -- if you highlight the portion of the person's message you wish to reply to and then hit the Reply button or keyboard command, only that portion of the original message is quoted. Some clients are getting more intelligent about how people like to communicate, and some clients are just adding colors and fonts and making communication more difficult by making contextual replies harder to do. I would think that would be enough right there for most people to look for a better client, but most don't. They take the path of least resistance and use either whatever is provided by some IT person or came with the machine. This really isn't [EE] at all, so I'm going to stop now unless you move it to [OT]. Just not sure if you read [OT], so last reply here. Nate -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by apptech
::
Rate this Message:
Ah well ... :-)
I feel that top posting is useful for a single paragraph reply of moderate length where the quoted material is visible when the message is opened. For anything of complexity where there are several quotes or where the response includes a summary of past thread history, or where there are responses to responses to ..., then bottom or interleaved posting seems (to me) vastly superior. I have seen numerous top posts where it is not obvious what is being replied to, even when (or because) extensive quoted material is included. I also find that responses where there is no quoted material (as is the case here :-) ) are often completely unintelligible without going back and looking at prior posts. I'm unlikely to do this if the thread is not already of significant interest. I use whatever seems best and logical and useful at the time BUT find that, for me, this is usually bottom posting. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Gerhard Fiedler
::
Rate this Message:
Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> No difference here. I see no justification bottom posting is > any better than top posting, but that IMHO. I think bottom vs. top posting is not the /real/ question. I think we all agree that including the complete contents of all prior emails in a thread is not only impractical, but also annoying. No matter whether bottom or top or something else, people should only include the relevant content from prior messages. Here comes in one gripe with top posting: sometimes people seem to completely forget how many megabytes of text they are replying to, and just add their few sentences at the top. This probably happens easier with top posting, because it's easier to overlook the huge amount accumulated if you don't even scroll to the end. > I like your posting style: context posting. After you have trimmed prior content to the reasonable portions, you often have more than one issue left. In this case, what you call context posting (and what generally is referred to as bottom posting, but that's more a misnomer than a helpful name) is obviously the most sensible thing to do. So the question is probably not "top or bottom posting", it's two-fold: "should we trim prior content?" (yes!) and "where should we then add our comments to the prior content?" (bottom, top, or in context -- my preference being "in context"). > However the email clients are not making this easier and this is across > Linux and Windows. You can configure Outlook to prefix every line of a message you are replying to with e.g. ">". (Tools | Options | Preferences | E-mail Options ... | On replies and forwards.) This makes context posting quite possible, even with Outlook. We need to take into account that while nowadays most programs come out of the box with some useful functionality, the real spectrum of functionality comes to light only after reading the manual and going through all menu and configuration items. The other option is to use a hammer for nails and a screwdriver for screws (in other words, the right tool for the job): I use Outlook as my email program for "normal" email and as a general organizing tool, but I read mailing lists and newsgroups with a different program (40tude Dialog). In these days of plenty free email addresses, this is not difficult to set up at all. So you can use the Outlook-induced top posting for the private emails, where it more often is not as bad as it is in newsgroups and mailing lists, and use all the tools a good newsreader provides (like reformatting citation paragraphs) to context post in newsgroups and mailing lists. > Few people are using context posting since it requires more effort on the > user' part. I grant you this, but nothing's free... It costs more effort to write decent content, but that's rarely heard as an argument against decent content :) Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [OT] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Byron A Jeff
::
Rate this Message:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:00:07PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Chen Xiao Fan wrote: > >I like your posting style: context posting. However the email > >clients are not making this easier and this is across Linux > >and Windows. Few people are using context posting since it > >requires more effort on the user' part. I do admire those > >who do this. > > I haven't seen any significant difference in how this works in any > e-mail client in many years. It's the client that defines how easy/difficult it is to do context posting. Here at Georgia Tech I still use Mutt: a Unix based text E-mail client. When I do replies it drops me into the vi editor. This makes it easy to context reply, and so I do so. At work I use the Outlook webmail client. When replying it doesn't post a leading edge of anything in front of the quoted text. This makes it dificult to context post because you have to have a visual separation between the quoted and new text. > I'm not sure what you're referring to about clients making it more > difficult. Clients that makes no differentiation between quoted and new text. > > There's only one e-mail client that I know of that makes it difficult > and that's only when it's in HTML or rich-text modes. Both of which are > rarely necessary to get one's point across. > > Some really good e-mail clients actually make contextual posting easier > -- if you highlight the portion of the person's message you wish to > reply to and then hit the Reply button or keyboard command, only that > portion of the original message is quoted. > > Some clients are getting more intelligent about how people like to > communicate, and some clients are just adding colors and fonts and > making communication more difficult by making contextual replies harder > to do. Agreed. It's a syndrome I see with my wife. See just likes her E-mail to look cute. And fonts and colors make it cure. It rarely transmits any additional information content however. > I would think that would be enough right there for most people to look > for a better client, but most don't. They take the path of least > resistance and use either whatever is provided by some IT person or came > with the machine. True. For example at work I use the webmail client. If I really wanted to work hard at it, I could equip all of my machines with an IMAP based local client, like Evolution. But it does take time and energy to configure each client. The best solution would be to run my on webmail server, such as SquirrelMail, and build the interface to my liking. It takes time and effort however. > > This really isn't [EE] at all, so I'm going to stop now unless you move > it to [OT]. Just not sure if you read [OT], so last reply here. I'll repost to OT. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Wayne Topa-3
::
Rate this Message:
Chen Xiao Fan(xiaofan@...) is reported to have said:
> adding missing headers Wayne Topa wrote: >> "The same is true of top posting a one line reply to a long post >> and including the complete thread in the reply. That should be >> history!" > --> > "The same is true of bottom posting a one line reply to a long post > and including the complete thread in the reply. That should be > history!" Very true. I did not mean to imply that a one line bottom post was correct either. I see both as a waste of bandwidth. Wayne -- Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts. _______________________________________________________ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Danny Sauer
::
Rate this Message:
Gerhard wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?' on Fri, Nov 25 at 07:24:
> You can configure Outlook to prefix every line of a message you are > replying to with e.g. ">". (Tools | Options | Preferences | E-mail Options > ... | On replies and forwards.) This makes context posting quite possible, > even with Outlook. We need to take into account that while nowadays most It's worth noting for those who spell check that this breaks spell checking (in Outlook). The checker somehow is unable to figure out what you typed v/s what you replied to, and checks even the quoted text. I find that exceedingly irritating, as many people I reply to don't spell well. :) It's also irritating because almost every other mail program doesn't have a problem with that... --Danny -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [EE] Top-posting, is it really that bad?
by Gerhard Fiedler
::
Rate this Message:
David Van Horn wrote:
>> Do you really read the quoted text? > > Absolutely. And get (at least a bit) annoyed when it's obviously quoted thoughtlessly without trimming :) Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
