Top posting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruce Wood
  • Start date Start date
Andy said:
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#.
Click to expand...

It has been moved to another thread - you should be able to block the thread
if it is truly bothering you :)

And it obviously is an issue - or it wouldn't have come up at all.

I would speculate that the reason it was never an issue is because C# is a
relatively new technology. It has not, been being shoved down first year CS
and EE majors' throats. When that changes, you will see a paradigm shift.
All the sudden instead of professionals, people teaching themselves and
uber-geeks there will be a flood of people wanting their homework done for
them and asking what a class is. For the most part this will probably not
push away all technical arguments - but it will slowly wear on everyone's
patience.
 
Paul E Collins said:
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.
Click to expand...

That only works in a system with indefinite message retention (IE google)

There is associated inherant latency with switching back and forth between
web pages on a remote server. That is what I cache all messages locally and
prefer something like agent or outlook express for message reading. And
the reason there doesn't exist a standard precache on all links is not
because it is impossible, but because companies are not willing to make all
their webpage views do 10-50 times as much work to get links ready when so
many people are just going to close the window. Granted, if the server is
working well and you have a good connection (medium to high grade DSL for
instance) then the latency can be acceptable.

In Outlook Express I can scroll through the messages with what seems like
infinitely small piece of time. I push the down arrow and I'm at the next
message. I have never seen that kind of speed from any webbased system,
including google.

And who knows - maybe they have a new web interface that allows me to read
2000 posts as quickly on the web as in outlook express. But, I doubt it. I
would even settle for close.
 
This is a software newsgroup, for developers. As developers, we should be
keenly aware of the concept of "requirements." Software is designed to
fulfill requirements. Any part of a piece of software which is not specified
in the requirements, due to ambiguity or omission, is irrelevant with
regards to the requirements, as long as it either supports the fulfillment
of the requirements, or does not inhibit the fulfillment of those
requirements. So, let's talk about the requirements for these support
newsgroups:

The NNTP protocol does not specify a requirement with regards to the format
of a reply, nor does the W3C. Therefore, it is not a requirement that the
reply be formatted in any way whatsoever. However, the purpose of these
newsgroups is to communicate information. Communication requires 2 things:
Clarity on the part of the originator, and the ability to correctly
interpret on the part of the recipient.

Therefore, the format of a reply is irrelevant to the fulfillment of the
requirements of these newsgroups, as long as the format does not inhibit the
communication of information. In other words, with regards to the
requirements of these newsgroups, unless the format inhibits the clarity of
communication on the part of the poster, it is irrelevant. The correct
interpretation on the part of the recipient or reader is purely subjective,
and is the responsibility of the person reading.

Any developer that is concerned about an aspect of a project that has no
relevance to the fulfillment of the requirements is a poor developer. Anyone
participating in a discussion in these newsgroups that is concerned about
the format rather than the communication of ideas is a poor communicator.

Now, the argument might be made that top posting or bottom posting inhibits
the ability of the reader or recipient from interpreting the message.
However, as there is no standard established, the expectation on the part of
the recipient or reader is not relevant to the ability of the reader to
interpret a message. Therefore, since it is the reader's responsibility to
interpret and understand the message, the argument fails.

So, assuming that the reader desires the information, but is unable to
interpret the message correctly for some other reason, or because of lack of
clarity on the part of the originator? At that point, it is the
responsibility of the reader to ask for clarification. Note that the format
of the message is not relevant to this process either.

Personally, I like to eat my boiled eggs from the middle. ;-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP

Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries:
http://www.miradyne.net
 
It has been moved to another thread - you should be able to block the thread
if it is truly bothering you :)
Click to expand...

That still doesn't solve the problem that myself and others in the
group are here instead of other, relevant threads.
And it obviously is an issue - or it wouldn't have come up at all.
Click to expand...

Actually it was only one person that brought it up; I believe if that
one post had not been made, it still wouldn't have come up.
I would speculate that the reason it was never an issue is because C# is a
relatively new technology. It has not, been being shoved down first year CS
and EE majors' throats. When that changes, you will see a paradigm shift.
All the sudden instead of professionals, people teaching themselves and
uber-geeks there will be a flood of people wanting their homework done for
them and asking what a class is. For the most part this will probably not
push away all technical arguments - but it will slowly wear on everyone's
patience.
Click to expand...

I would speculate that its never been an issue because 99% of the
people that use this group simply don't care how posts are quoted.
As far as zealous goes, it seems to be those that want only bottom
posts that exhibit that behavior; I don't think I've even seen someone
getting blasted because they were bottom posting in a group that is
typically top posting.

Its been my experience that those that complain about top posting
wrongly believe they are a majority, when they are not. They also
fail to realize that newsgroups are a community, and that community
norms change overtime. Telling people to do something one way
because that's how it was done 20 years ago is simply silly and a
little arrogant.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree: it's easier to read when someone who responds to a variety of
points in the preceding post uses in-line or interleaved posting. It's
one of the few times that I bother to click on the links that say
"Show quoted text" to see the context. Come to think of it, Jon, yours
are probably the only posts in this category. :-)

The majority of the time, if I'm following the discussion, I already
know what the current points are, and I just read the response in that
context. It really does take a lot to make me bother looking at the
quoted text.

So does proper posting style matter to me? Well, 99% of the time, no.
On rare occasion, yes, but then for that tiny proportion of the time I
could probably just figure it out, regardless of posting style.

In summary, then, good posting style is nice, but not so necessary for
me that I consider it worth interrupting otherwise productive threads.

As an analogy, consider proper spelling and grammar. I would consider
these even more important to understanding what a poster is on about
than whether they top, bottom, or interleave-post. However, I accept
that there are a lot of posters in this group for whom English is a
second (or third, or fourth) language. Yes, it would be nice if they
would improve their English so that I could better understand their
questions or responses, but I would sooner plonk someone who insists
on chiming in with spelling and grammar corrections than I would plonk
someone who is struggling with the language. So it is with posting
style: if posting "Please don't top post" is the cure, then it's worse
than the disease, IMHO.
 
I would speculate that the reason it was never an issue is because C# is a
relatively new technology. It has not, been being shoved down first year CS
and EE majors' throats. When that changes, you will see a paradigm shift.
All the sudden instead of professionals, people teaching themselves and
uber-geeks there will be a flood of people wanting their homework done for
them and asking what a class is. For the most part this will probably not
push away all technical arguments - but it will slowly wear on everyone's
patience.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't call it a "flood", but we do get a lot of that here.
As Peter Bromberg pointed out, we also get magic mystery posts like,
"I need to control an elevator in C#; how do I do that?"

In many other, older newsgroups, people are seriously flame-roasted
for making posts like this. In fact, in some long-established
newsgroups, posting a question that is answered--even tangentially--in
the FAQ is grounds for merciless flaming. This group is much more
relaxed. Newbie questions, crazy questions, questions with tortured
syntax: we field them all here.

Perhaps that's why we don't care as much about posting style: our goal
isn't to maintain the purity of the newsgroup content. It is, rather,
to help others and to receive help. The only time we chide posters is
when their posts don't contain enough information to give them useful
assistance, in which case we try to teach them how to improve the
quality of their content so that next time they will receive a swifter
and more accurate response.

A while back someone cross-posted a question here and to comp.lang.c.
The difference in temperament between the two groups was an eye-opener.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know about that: in the case I saw the poster had a
humorous signature that explained why top-posting was bad. I never saw
anyone post a response asking him about his sig. I suppose it might
happen, but as it's not part of the message content proper, most
people don't respond to it.
Also, you believe that simply posting a link explaining why you
should do something will cause those people to do so. It will not.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point: adding a "don't top post" signature will not cause
_everyone_ to stop top-posting. It may, however, convince a few, and
do so without the disruption caused by actually posting about posting
style. It's not a perfect solution by any means: some may still
respond to the sig, derailing the thread, and from the point of view
of the no-top-posting zealot, he's not reaching "offenders" with the
kind of directness that would tend to guarantee results.

The suggestion is, in the end, a compromise: one can make one's
preferences known without unduly polluting the discussion.
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#.
Click to expand...

Which is why this discussion is now in a separate, thoroughly-
ignorable thread. (Although I note with wry amusement that this has
not quelled the discussion in the now horribly-misnamed thread on
string literals.)
 
Its been my experience that those that complain about top posting
wrongly believe they are a majority, when they are not. They also
fail to realize that newsgroups are a community, and that community
norms change overtime. Telling people to do something one way
because that's how it was done 20 years ago is simply silly and a
little arrogant.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would say that "that's how it was done 20 years
ago" is a good reason. However, there *are* good reasons for inline
posting, as discussed.
 
I don't think anyone would say that "that's how it was done 20 years
ago" is a good reason. However, there *are* good reasons for inline
posting, as discussed.
Click to expand...

No, I never said it was a good argument, but I have seen it used. My
comments were not specific to anything in this newsgroup, just what
I've experienced in newsgroups in general.

Many of the reasons given for one posting style vs. another though are
highly subject and depend on the reader one is using. For some, its
easier not to have to scroll down because they've been active in
reading a topic.

As long as I can figure out the flow (be it top, bottom or inline
posted) I'm fine.
 
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
Click to expand...

Speaking of pet peaves...one at the top of my list is automatically
assuming someone is asking a homework question. It's pretty annoying
to see accusations going back-and-forth before everyone realizes it
really was a legitimate question in the first place.
 
Andy said:
No, I never said it was a good argument, but I have seen it used. My
comments were not specific to anything in this newsgroup, just what
I've experienced in newsgroups in general.

Many of the reasons given for one posting style vs. another though are
highly subject and depend on the reader one is using. For some, its
easier not to have to scroll down because they've been active in
reading a topic.

As long as I can figure out the flow (be it top, bottom or inline
posted) I'm fine.
Click to expand...

Top posting would not be annoying if everyone did it. Then you could figure
out the context of the message from bottom to top fairly easily.

The annoyance is when one person top posted to an inline reply which was a
bottom post . . etc. etc. and didn't take the time to fix or snip. The
deeper the greater than signs the harder is to determine who said what.

Nevertheless, you (I mean this thread) have made you point. I am not going
to remind anyone to not top post.

However - I seek your opinion. Am I allowed to remind people to quote if
simultaniously answering their question? In the spirit of conversation, I
will generally tell someone that I am helping if they are doing something
that is making it inconvenient.
 
Bruce Wood said:
Well, I wouldn't call it a "flood", but we do get a lot of that here.
As Peter Bromberg pointed out, we also get magic mystery posts like,
"I need to control an elevator in C#; how do I do that?"
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am saying. To expect it more and more. Ah . .
Chapter 6 Deitel and Deitel . . Elevator simulation. Brings back memories
of my college days :) That was C++ though.
In many other, older newsgroups, people are seriously flame-roasted
for making posts like this. In fact, in some long-established
newsgroups, posting a question that is answered--even tangentially--in
the FAQ is grounds for merciless flaming. This group is much more
relaxed. Newbie questions, crazy questions, questions with tortured
syntax: we field them all here.
Click to expand...

That is not a bad thing. Although, to me it seems an FAQ would still be
helpful - even for nothing more than a point of reference.
Perhaps that's why we don't care as much about posting style: our goal
isn't to maintain the purity of the newsgroup content. It is, rather,
to help others and to receive help. The only time we chide posters is
when their posts don't contain enough information to give them useful
assistance, in which case we try to teach them how to improve the
quality of their content so that next time they will receive a swifter
and more accurate response.

A while back someone cross-posted a question here and to comp.lang.c.
The difference in temperament between the two groups was an eye-opener.
Click to expand...

sci.crypt is pretty "strict" too.

But I can adapt. I have been to other groups that didn't care - just never
a tech group.
 
And it magically turns into a spelling thread... it's "you're still
retarded." And I've poly-posted this reply so as not to offend anybody.

Scott M. said:
Hmmm,

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

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

And it magically turns into a spelling thread... it's "you're still
retarded." And I've poly-posted this reply so as not to offend anybody.
Did two different people write this post?
Click to expand...

And it magically turns into a spelling thread... it's "you're still
retarded." And I've poly-posted this reply so as not to offend anybody.
 
I seek your opinion. Am I allowed to remind people to quote if
simultaniously answering their question? In the spirit of conversation, I
will generally tell someone that I am helping if they are doing something
that is making it inconvenient.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with posting a response something like, "Next
time, please include at least some of the text of the original
question; it will make it easier for me to understand what the problem
is."

We make responses like that all the time here, including Jon Skeet's
famous "Small but complete program" web page instructions,
particularly in cases in which we just can't figure out what the
person's problem is. That's probably the most common peeve I've seen
expressed here, which results in the most common piece of posting
advice: copy straight from your code and paste it to the newsgroup.

Asking for more information, or better information, or telling a
poster how to provide good information so that next time they get a
better response... all of these lead to the goal, which is helping
solve problems. None of this is necessarily arguing over form for
form's sake: when poor form makes it difficult to deliver good advice,
helpful comments are fair game.
 
Let me state for the record that your speculation isn't supported by any
facts. Idle speculation and spelling errors bother far more people that
posting at the top of a response (notice how I just posted something
completely unsubstantiated?) that's clearly par for the course here :-)

Out of curiosity is the average age of the respondents to this thread 14 or
thereabouts? :-)
 
Well-stated Kevin. :-)

Are the people expecting answers (aka "help") of the mind that the format of
that help should be in a format that they dictate? Should we then require
those who post questions to indicate their formatting requirements so
repliers don't offend them? How 21st century! :-)

Personally I tend to believe that a person who bottom-posts doesn't really
know the answer but desires to appear technically adroit. :-)
 
I didn't want to change the quote, so as not to get flamed for mis-quoting
the multiple authors of that post.

:)
 
To adhere to the recent call from some here to "berate other posters in your
signature" I offer my new one :-)

Tom
Consider using "sic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic when quoting things
with obvious errors
Oh and don't bottom-post.

Great thread we have here :-)
 
Brian Gideon said:
Speaking of pet peaves...one at the top of my list is automatically
assuming someone is asking a homework question. It's pretty annoying
to see accusations going back-and-forth before everyone realizes it
really was a legitimate question in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there can be a lot of business reasons why a programmer needs to ask
how to write a routine to figure out the first 100 prime numbers, or
something like that...

Robin S.
 
Back
Top