Top posting

[Bruce Wood]

This subject has come up several times in this group over the last
year. Several people in this group seem to feel strongly about this
topic. Rather than derail other threads with this discussion, I
figured we could talk about it here.

Since I'm leading off here, I'll state my opinion on the matter.

I really don't care one way or the other. I use Google, and for all
its faults, does do one thing right: it hides quoted text. So, I just
see the new post either above or below a little marker that says,
"Show quoted text". As a result, posting style doesn't matter a whit
to me.

However, I do understand that not everyone uses Google. Doubly so
since their latest round of "improvements" managed to make the
interface much, much worse than it was before. Other news readers may
not hide quoted text, and so posting style matters more to people who
use such news readers.

That said, it really pisses me off when an otherwise productive /
interesting thread goes off the rails because one person posts,
"Please don't top post." This leads to the inevitable response,
"What's top posting?" and then the original point of the thread is
pretty-much lost as the explanation is followed by a lengthy debate...
and another thread dies under a pile of posts about posting style.

I have a suggestion for those who feel strongly on this topic. It's
not a terribly original suggestion: I saw someone else do this a while
back. Write a little Web page on top posting: what it is, why it's
bad, etc. Then change your signature line to say, "Please don't top
post; see here" and provide a link to the Web page. It's simple,
unobtrusive, and every time you post you may make more converts. Even
better, it stands little or no chance of derailing otherwise useful
conversations.

 

[Scott M.]

I'm afraid you're always going to have a new crop of newbies to teach about
top-posting. In the 10+ years I've been using newsgroups, this issue hasn't
gone away.

Personally, I don't see the problem with ostracizing, flaming, skewing,
burning at the stake, et. all someone who does this. Most get the point
after that, the others are trolls.

 

[Bill Butler]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott M." <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Top posting

I'm afraid you're always going to have a new crop of newbies to teach
about top-posting. In the 10+ years I've been using newsgroups, this
issue hasn't gone away.

Personally, I don't see the problem with ostracizing, flaming,
skewing, burning at the stake, et. all someone who does this. Most get
the point after that, the others are trolls.

<grin>

Thanks for the post...I got a chuckle out of.

Bill

 

[Michael A. Covington]

That said, it really pisses me off when an otherwise productive /

interesting thread goes off the rails because one person posts,
"Please don't top post."

If top posting did not have some kind of perceived advantage, people
wouldn't do it.

I think people object to it because they've been told to object to it,
because they think the Elder Geeks object to it, and so forth.

Top posting was indeed very inconvenient in the days before threaded
newsreaders. Those days were a long time ago.

BTW, I am an Elder Geek (on BITNET in 1979, Urbana PLATO briefly in 1976,
Georgia wide-area network in 1973).

 

[Michael A. Covington]

I'm afraid you're always going to have a new crop of newbies to teach
about top-posting. In the 10+ years I've been using newsgroups, this
issue hasn't gone away.

Personally, I don't see the problem with ostracizing, flaming, skewing,
burning at the stake, et. all someone who does this. Most get the point
after that, the others are trolls.

Nice meta-troll.

 

[per9000]

This subject has come up several times in this group over the last
year. Several people in this group seem to feel strongly about this
topic. Rather than derail other threads with this discussion, I
figured we could talk about it here.
...

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_styles

"""When a message is replied to in e-mail, Internet forums, and Usenet
the original can often be included, or "quoted", in a variety of
different posting styles.

The main options are top-posting ... bottom-posting ... or interleaved
posting. While each online community differs on which styles are
appropriate or acceptable, within any community the use of the "wrong"
method risks being seen as a major breach of netiquette, and can
provoke vehement response from community regulars."""

As I see it the use of the "wrong" posting style is nothing to argue
about - even if it may be bad netiquette to use the "wrong" style I
see it as *worse* netiquette to start bugging newbies and people who
just don't care about posting styles that they should "no top-
posting". If anything I think you should tell people what you think
they should do and not what not to do,

I totally agree with Bruce: just add a stupid signature that says
"""[YOUR NAME HERE]
1337 H4XXZ0R
Please Bottom-post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottompost)"""

or if you prefer top-posting:

"""[YOUR NAME HERE]
N00B 7R011
Please Top-post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-post)""

HTH,
/Per

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

If top posting did not have some kind of perceived advantage, people
wouldn't do it.

That assumes a degree of thought which I don't believe is present in
all people.

I suspect many people just type where their cursor starts, and don't
think about advantages or disadvantages. If pushed, I suppose "not
having to do anything before starting to type" could be viewed as an
advantage, but it's only an advantage to the person posting (one
person) compared with the advantages to the readers (potentially many)
of inline posting with appropriate snipping.

Jon

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

This subject has come up several times in this group over the last
year. Several people in this group seem to feel strongly about this
topic. Rather than derail other threads with this discussion, I
figured we could talk about it here.

Since I'm leading off here, I'll state my opinion on the matter.

I really don't care one way or the other. I use Google, and for all
its faults, does do one thing right: it hides quoted text. So, I just
see the new post either above or below a little marker that says,
"Show quoted text". As a result, posting style doesn't matter a whit
to me.

Suppose someone is replying to a post, and makes 10 different points
against 10 different statements made in the previous post.

Do you genuinely think it's as easy to follow the arguments if those
10 new points are all made at the top, in one block, rather than each
new point immediately following the statement it's addressing? That's
the main argument in favour of inline posting from my point of view,
and I can't see how using Google changes it at all.

Jon

 

[gwoodhouse]

That assumes a degree of thought which I don't believe is present in
all people.

I suspect many people just type where their cursor starts, and don't
think about advantages or disadvantages. If pushed, I suppose "not
having to do anything before starting to type" could be viewed as an
advantage, but it's only an advantage to the person posting (one
person) compared with the advantages to the readers (potentially many)
of inline posting with appropriate snipping.

Jon

If there was no advantage, why would the browser/webpage include the
post? I've found that on the internet, as in life, it is much easier
to /accept/ these things happen, and find ways of dealing with it
(Such as using google groups which happily clean the thread up for
you). Flaming or otherwise attacking someone else reflects as badly on
yourself as your target - Besides that, why are people so presumtuous
to beleive that they have the authority to mete out "punishment"?
Surley their are admins to do this?

And of course, as the old saying goes (while not very PC): Fighting on
the internet is like the special olypics, No matter who wins or loses,
your still retarded.

Graeme

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

If there was no advantage, why would the browser/webpage include the
post?

I never suggested there was no advantage to quoting. I suggested there
was no advantage to top-posting. There's a huge difference.

I've found that on the internet, as in life, it is much easier
to /accept/ these things happen, and find ways of dealing with it
(Such as using google groups which happily clean the thread up for
you). Flaming or otherwise attacking someone else reflects as badly on
yourself as your target - Besides that, why are people so presumtuous
to beleive that they have the authority to mete out "punishment"?
Surley their are admins to do this?

Not really - this is an unmoderated group. There are admins for the MS
servers who will cancel spam posts, but they're not going to get
involved over posting style. That's not to say that using a good
posting style doesn't improve the communication on the group. While I
disagree with flaming someone over posting style, I don't think it's
outrageous to suggest to someone that their posts might be clearer if
they posted inline. I wouldn't make a post *just* saying that, but I
might tag it on the end of a post. I sometimes do a similar thing if
someone's posts regularly have lines going over 80 characters (which
can make it a pain to quote them in a netiquette-friendly way).

And of course, as the old saying goes (while not very PC): Fighting on
the internet is like the special olypics, No matter who wins or loses,
your still retarded.

I disagree - I've been in very vigorous discussions (e.g. of technical
issues) where by the end of the day, everyone agrees (i.e. someone has
"won") and the world is a slightly more educated place.

Certainly there are plenty of times when there *isn't* any benefit in
"fighting the good fight", but I think the saying you quoted is an
over-generalisation. Of course, the "fighting" should be done as
politely as possible...

Jon

 

[Paul E Collins]

I really don't care one way or the other. I use Google, and for all
its faults, does do one thing right: it hides quoted text. So, I
just
see the new post either above or below a little marker that says,
"Show quoted text".

I'm reminded of an old chat room where major resources were spent on
encouraging people not to write in ALL CAPS. One day, the room was
changed so that any sentence containing more than 50% capitals was
converted to lower-case automatically: this immediately wiped out the
disputes, stopped the readability problem, and made everybody happy.

In this case, presumably, a newsreader program could have the option
to dynamically reformat top-postings by moving unquoted content to the
bottom if all of it precedes anything quoted. (You've already said
that Google, for example, can pick them out.) I don't see the sense in
shouting at people for not doing something a machine could do.

Eq.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On Apr 5, 10:36 am, "Paul E Collins" <[email protected]>
wrote:

In this case, presumably, a newsreader program could have the option
to dynamically reformat top-postings by moving unquoted content to the
bottom if all of it precedes anything quoted. (You've already said
that Google, for example, can pick them out.) I don't see the sense in
shouting at people for not doing something a machine could do.

The machine can't work out which bits of the post are relevant and
snip the rest though. As I believe I said on the other thread, merely
quoting *everything* in the previous post isn't usually a good idea
(unless the whole post is relevant to your reply). It fixes the
"reading top to bottom" issue, but unless all the replies are short
and the thread dies after a few posts, it will still rapidly get to
the point where the new text is overwhelmed by the old.

The best way of replying, IMO, is to snip everything which isn't
relevant to your reply, and reply to each point beneath the section it
refers to. *That* can't be automated.

Jon

 

[FrancisHeaney2]

merely

quoting *everything* in the previous post isn't usually a good idea
(unless the whole post is relevant to your reply).

100% ACK, but other than that, I think top posting is "ok".

 

[Guest]

I'ts always enlightening to read about other people's pet peeves. While top -
posting can be an annoying idiosyncracy, it is nowhere near as high on my
list as the inane "Me Too" posts and posts which ask questions that provide
so little initial information that we must assume they think we are using the
Telepathy API.
Peter

 

[Andy]

This subject has come up several times in this group over the last
year. Several people in this group seem to feel strongly about this
topic. Rather than derail other threads with this discussion, I
figured we could talk about it here.

Since I'm leading off here, I'll state my opinion on the matter.

I really don't care one way or the other. I use Google, and for all
its faults, does do one thing right: it hides quoted text. So, I just
see the new post either above or below a little marker that says,
"Show quoted text". As a result, posting style doesn't matter a whit
to me.

However, I do understand that not everyone uses Google. Doubly so
since their latest round of "improvements" managed to make the
interface much, much worse than it was before. Other news readers may
not hide quoted text, and so posting style matters more to people who
use such news readers.

That said, it really pisses me off when an otherwise productive /
interesting thread goes off the rails because one person posts,
"Please don't top post." This leads to the inevitable response,
"What's top posting?" and then the original point of the thread is
pretty-much lost as the explanation is followed by a lengthy debate...
and another thread dies under a pile of posts about posting style.

I have a suggestion for those who feel strongly on this topic. It's
not a terribly original suggestion: I saw someone else do this a while
back. Write a little Web page on top posting: what it is, why it's
bad, etc. Then change your signature line to say, "Please don't top
post; see here" and provide a link to the Web page. It's simple,
unobtrusive, and every time you post you may make more converts. Even
better, it stands little or no chance of derailing otherwise useful
conversations.

I mostly agree with your post, but I disagree that even posting a link
is unobtrusive. Invariably, questions about posting style will end up
in the thread where it does not belong.

Also, you believe that simply posting a link explaining why you
should do something will cause those people to do so. It will not.
My suggestion is this; learn to deal with the different posting styles
of people, or simply ignore posts that don't meet your 'standards.'

One of the reasons I like this group is because its been free (until
now) about pointless posting style wars. Please, don't post about
this again here, people (including me) are wasting time on this topic,
which really has nothing to do with C#.

 

[Morten Wennevik [C# MVP]]

I don't really care how the posts are made, but if you aren't going to snip the previous post, I prefer top posting as the answer is immediatly readable without having to scroll (more reasons for this at the bottom). If there are several questions, keep the answers separate (paragraph per answer) on top, bottom or inline.

However, during all the years in various public internet communities, there is one important rule to remember. There are no rules, and the quicker you accept it, the faster you will stop being annoyed at people not following what you consider rules. That said, there are guidelines, and the more guidelines you follow, the more respect you will get, but guidelines are optional. In a non public, or semi-public, moderated forum you may enforce rules as you like, but you may well find out that the less rules enforced, the happier the community.

As for guidelines, those are tricky, as there are very few common grounds where every community agree. Usually they all agree on abusive language, but posting style is too dependent on how you read and write the messages.

One point regarding "reasons for not top posting" which claims it is unnatural to read the question after the answer. This is true only if you haven't already read the question, and is relevant only if you go directly to an answer, which in my mind is rather unnatural, although if would make sense if you search an archive and get more relevant hits on the answer than the question. In this regard I often keep the original question included in my answer (for archive reasons), but at the bottom as it is relevant only to people not following the thread.

Btw, since entering news net (usenet) in 1994 I have seen two posts complaining about top posted answers, both during the last year. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[Scott M.]

Top posting was indeed very inconvenient in the days before threaded

newsreaders. Those days were a long time ago.

Sorry Elder Geek, but they are not. I use OE and top posts sit there at the
top until their expiration date. I could change the configuration of OE so
that these particular posts don't cause me to see them day after day, but
why should I? This is the whole point of why top-posting is bad, it is
inconvenient to others and there really is no good reason to do it.

 

[Scott M.]

Hmmm,

"Flaming or otherwise attacking someone else reflects as badly on
yourself as your target "

"No matter who wins or loses, your still retarded."

Did two different people write this post?

 

[Luc The Perverse]

That assumes a degree of thought which I don't believe is present in
all people.

I suspect many people just type where their cursor starts, and don't
think about advantages or disadvantages. If pushed, I suppose "not
having to do anything before starting to type" could be viewed as an
advantage, but it's only an advantage to the person posting (one
person) compared with the advantages to the readers (potentially many)
of inline posting with appropriate snipping.

In groups with consensus, most people are willing to follow convention with
the exception of a few top posting zealot trolls.

Generally, most people don't even think about it which is where gentle
reminders are supposed to come in

The only thing that caught me off guard was the "lack of consensus"

 

[Luc The Perverse]

I'ts always enlightening to read about other people's pet peeves. While
top -
posting can be an annoying idiosyncracy, it is nowhere near as high on my
list as the inane "Me Too" posts and posts which ask questions that
provide
so little initial information that we must assume they think we are using
the
Telepathy API.
Peter

Me too



And top posting is certainly superior to not quoting at all!