L
Larry Linson
You figured it out and illustrated it correctly. <GRIN>
T
Terry Kreft
A. People who complain about top/bottom posting instead of learning how to
scroll <g>.
scroll <g>.
L
Lyn
This may be straying from the original topic (but then who hasn't in this
thread
, but I have a serious question. Like David, I didn't understand
the reference to "top posting". Nor Trevor's response -- at first (but I
got it eventually.
I have noted in this and other NGs that some people respond above the
previous post(s), some below. And of course with long and complex posts, it
makes sense to embed parts of the response next to the relevant parts of the
previous post. But apart from that the comments in this thread suggest that
there is a preference among the gurus for responses at the bottom of the
previous posts rather than on top. Is my understanding of this correct? Is
there general agreement on this?
I must admit that I have been guilty (if that is the word) of "top posting".
It has always seemed to me that when reading a thread you don't want to have
to wade through all the previous postings over and over again to get to the
gem of new information at the bottom. But maybe I have been wrong about
this.
Of course another issue is: how long do you keep adding to all the previous
posts in a long thread -- at what point do you snip off the older posts to
keep the new post length manageable? Is there (or should there be) a rule
that you keep the last "n" posts and progressively delete older posts than
that? Or should this be done on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure
that the context of the subject matter remains clear, without requiring
readers to have to dig into old posts to make sense of the latest post?
In other words, is there an agreed netiquette on replying to posts in regard
to top/bottom posting and snipping early posts to avoid bloat? If so, what
is it?
thread
, but I have a serious question. Like David, I didn't understandthe reference to "top posting". Nor Trevor's response -- at first (but I
got it eventually
.I have noted in this and other NGs that some people respond above the
previous post(s), some below. And of course with long and complex posts, it
makes sense to embed parts of the response next to the relevant parts of the
previous post. But apart from that the comments in this thread suggest that
there is a preference among the gurus for responses at the bottom of the
previous posts rather than on top. Is my understanding of this correct? Is
there general agreement on this?
I must admit that I have been guilty (if that is the word) of "top posting".
It has always seemed to me that when reading a thread you don't want to have
to wade through all the previous postings over and over again to get to the
gem of new information at the bottom. But maybe I have been wrong about
this.
Of course another issue is: how long do you keep adding to all the previous
posts in a long thread -- at what point do you snip off the older posts to
keep the new post length manageable? Is there (or should there be) a rule
that you keep the last "n" posts and progressively delete older posts than
that? Or should this be done on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure
that the context of the subject matter remains clear, without requiring
readers to have to dig into old posts to make sense of the latest post?
In other words, is there an agreed netiquette on replying to posts in regard
to top/bottom posting and snipping early posts to avoid bloat? If so, what
is it?
T
Terry Kreft
Lyn,
People can get quite vehement about top and bottom posting.
Essentially theadvantage of consistent bottom posting is that you can read
through the posts in sequence.
The advantage of top posting is that when you use a preview pane the
previewed content tends to be the last post.
On the subject of trimming, you should really trim previous posts to what is
relevant to your post, in the past people could get quite nasty about not
trimming posts, this has become less of an issue though since the advent of
fast internet links and large storage space.
Personally I'm a rabid top-poster and trim when I remember to do so,
speaking of which
--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access
People can get quite vehement about top and bottom posting.
Essentially theadvantage of consistent bottom posting is that you can read
through the posts in sequence.
The advantage of top posting is that when you use a preview pane the
previewed content tends to be the last post.
On the subject of trimming, you should really trim previous posts to what is
relevant to your post, in the past people could get quite nasty about not
trimming posts, this has become less of an issue though since the advent of
fast internet links and large storage space.
Personally I'm a rabid top-poster and trim when I remember to do so,
speaking of which
--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access
itLyn said:This may be straying from the original topic (but then who hasn't in this
thread
the reference to "top posting". Nor Trevor's response -- at first (but I
got it eventually
I have noted in this and other NGs that some people respond above the
previous post(s), some below. And of course with long and complex posts,
J
John Vinson
This argument has been going on as long as Usenet has existed. It
sometimes attains the intensity of a religious war. Most old Usenet
hands prefer (with varying degrees of vehemence) bottom posting in
order to maintain chronological order within a message; many other
folks prefer top posting, for one because many newsreaders (including
the widely used Outlook Express) default to set the cursor there, and
for the reason you cite: being able to see the reply without scrolling
down.
There's no answer that will satisfy everyone, and there are vehement
opinions both ways.
Personally, I try to trim and either bottom post or interpost, but
depending on the situation, I'll sometimes just do a quick toppost.
I'm therefore despised and denigrated by the fanatics in both camps.
<g>
John W. Vinson[MVP]
R
rkc
Terry said:
What about eliminating newsgroups from a multi-posted article
when replying?
R
Rick Brandt
rkc said:
Crossposting is only frowned upon when the number of groups is excessive.
As this one only has four groups I would say it's fine (albeit at the high
end of fine).
R
rkc
Rick said:
O.K. I asked that wrong. Is it bad form to remove newsgroups from a
cross-posted article when replying to it. I tend to remove the
groups I don't read.
N
Noozer
Remove any group you like. A person should be watching any group they post
to.
T
Trevor Best
Terry said:
Lazybones
Now it's the people who normally smite the non-snippers getting lazy
On the subject of the vehement discussions (negotiations with a light
sabre? <g>) I don't usually smite top posters but if ask my opinion I
give it
Well, at least your sig sep works so your quoted post was automatically
snipped
I also hate people who end every paragraph with a smiley
R
Rob Oldfield
John Vinson said:
Personally speaking..... I'm all for compromise.
T
Trevor Best
Rick said:
I H8 it when someone cross posts to about 8 groups, legitimate question
and everything and when I reply I'm met with a message "non existent
newsgroups". I suppose a fault lies with newsgroup creators, e.g.
microsoft.public groups, how many do you really need? e.g:
microsoft.public.access.developers.toolkitode
microsoft.public.access.developerstoolkitode
microsoft.public.access.developers.toolkit
So if you had a question on the developers toolkit, where do you post?
There's loads of examples of "clientserver" vs "clientsvr", etc I'm sure
some groups could just be dropped but I guess it's harder to drop a
group than it is to create one. I see someone has created one called
"alt.netcom.wankers.send.too.many.newgroups" but ironically just creates
yet another group for someone to crosspost to.
R
rkc
Trevor said:I also hate people who end every paragraph with a smiley
On bad days a <Grin> just makes me want to take a baseball bat
and give'em such a smash.
M
Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]
Trevor Best said:
The only way around THAT is to always use the original server,
msnews.microsoft.com. Many ISPs pick up groups that have actually been
removed, for example microsoft.public.access.developerstoolkitode was
removed when someone pointed out that there was a standard of some sort
suggesting <= 14 characters per segment.
The ISPs and those who they get their feeds from claim that deleting the
group would be inapprpriate since people still post sometimes.
And then problem perpetuates itself.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure, Fonts, and Tools
Microsoft Windows International Division
This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
R
Rob Oldfield
(Top posted for the sheer hell of it...)
October 1995?
(Just watch Chris get vehement now.)
October 1995?
(Just watch Chris get vehement now.)
L
Larry Linson
Whatever they "should" be doing, many crossposters expect responses to
appear in the group from which they posted. Eliminating newsgroups from a
crosspost list may well prevent the original poster from seeing your
response.
Eliminating newsgroups from responses may happen if your news source doesn't
carry them all, but that's unavoidable.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
appear in the group from which they posted. Eliminating newsgroups from a
crosspost list may well prevent the original poster from seeing your
response.
Eliminating newsgroups from responses may happen if your news source doesn't
carry them all, but that's unavoidable.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
L
Larry Linson
Hope you're not having a bad day, today! <OUCH>
C
Chris2
Lyn said:This may be straying from the original topic (but then who hasn't in this
thread
the reference to "top posting". Nor Trevor's response -- at first (but I
got it eventually
Lyn,
RFC1855: Netiquette Guidelines, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html,
mandates bottom-posting.
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving
context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!"
That should be enough for anyone.
Sincerely,
Chris O.
C
Chris2
Rob Oldfield said:
Nope.
It was first created in 1995, but has been updated a few times since
then.
They are only "guidelines", and not laws. (However, I do think they
are *good* guidelines.)
Chris O.
N
Noozer
Larry Linson said:
So? Let them miss the response if they can't be bothered to watch where they
asked.