Are there conventions for posting to newsgroups?

[BudV]

I'm thinking specifically about replying at the top or the bottom of a post.

Replying at the bottom may be more pleasing aesthetically, given the natural
order of top-to-bottom = chronological, but replying at the top seems to be
far more practical and easy to use.

There are those who use both in the same thread. They, of course, should be
shot.

 

[John Vinson]

I'm thinking specifically about replying at the top or the bottom of a post.

This has been a contentious issue since the dial-up BBS days. Some
favor one, some the other, and arguments can grow heated.

Replying at the bottom may be more pleasing aesthetically, given the natural
order of top-to-bottom = chronological, but replying at the top seems to be
far more practical and easy to use.

Depends on the newsreader software. Some programs make top posting
easier, some favor bottm posting.

There are those who use both in the same thread. They, of course, should be
shot.

It's called "interlining" and I'd like to request a dish of Kung Pao
tofu with bamboo shoots for my last meal...

John W. Vinson[MVP]

 

[Terry Kreft]

You can read some suggestions on netiquette at
http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm

Specifically on top/bottom posting
--------------------------------------
Some sad people get badly hung up on this, people have argued about this for
decades and will no doubt continue to argue about it.

Essentially so long as you follow the netiquette suggestions it's your
choice whether you top/bottom post, if people don't like the way you post
there is nothing forcing them to read you.

Personally, I top post (QED) and have done so for the last 20 odd years,
although there have been occasions where I bottom posted or even interleaved
but this is generally because of thread dictates.

 

[Steve Schapel]

LOL!!

 

[Douglas J Steele]

Personally, I top post (QED) and have done so for the last 20 odd years,

What did you do for the even years? <g>

 

[Joseph Meehan]

I'm thinking specifically about replying at the top or the bottom of
a post.
Replying at the bottom may be more pleasing aesthetically, given the
natural order of top-to-bottom = chronological, but replying at the
top seems to be far more practical and easy to use.

There are those who use both in the same thread. They, of course,
should be shot.

Do what you like and someone will be mad at you. I mix mine up so I can
get even more people mad at me.

 

[Douglas J Steele]

So

Do what you like and someone will be mad at you. I mix mine up so I can
get even more people mad at me.

do I! <g>

 

[Terry Kreft]

LOL!

Tried to think up witty replies to posts like this: I'm still trying.

 

[Craig Hornish]

YOU

So




do I! <g> MISSED

ONE

Craig - Also shouting to be heard

 

[Pieter Wijnen]

as long as people don't SHOUT & post a relevant question & retain the whole
post & ....
(oh, back to nettiquette)

Pieter

 

[Pieter Wijnen]

as long as people don't SHOUT & post a relevant question & retain the whole
post & ....
(oh, back to nettiquette)

Pieter

YOU

ONE

Craig - Also shouting to be heard

--

 

[Larry Linson]

"BudV" wrote

The advantage of top posting is that you don't have to scroll so far to see
the most recent material; the disadvantage is that you have to scroll down
to refresh your memory about the question and what has gone before. Reverse
these for bottom posting. There's been no concensus on the subject in all
the years USENET newsgroups have been around, so it'd be folly to expect a
concensus _now_.

There are those who use both in the
same thread. They, of course, should
be shot.

"No," he said to his embarrassed aide, "I said to take him out to be
_shod_."

However, there are some very good suggestions for effective use of
newsgroups (not including top/bottom posting) at
http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP