OT top/bottom posting or feeding the flames or trolling

[default]

Seriously though, the top / bottom posting controversy has popped up
in many groups and undoubtedly will for a long, long time.

Is there anyone out there who dates back to the pre-commercialized
Internet that could offer a little light?

My own theory:
Usenet was a sort of bulletin board in the early Internet days. Back
in the distant past, a posting had to "percolate" from server to
server - no dedicated commercial newsgroup servers. There was a
measure of randomness to how a post got from someone in one area to
someone who looks to a different server for his messages.

Servers are up and down, universities and individuals maintained the
systems. They did it for love (for lack of a better word) if another
interest came along . . . well a server might suffer . . . personal
priorities get into the act.

With that scenario (and remember they were working with text editors -
not newsreaders) , it is all too likely that the reply was on some
servers before the question. In that environment, bottom posting does
make a lot of sense.

But that's only my theory. I only got on line with DOS and Windows,
the Internet was already there for me (after calling up a dialer,
winsock, and then a browser).

Today commercial interests support usenet for a profit. You pay them,
or your ISP does. They make it their business to see that a post is
carried on all servers.

In this environment, and with good newsreaders, top posting makes more
sense to me.

 

[Rod Speed]

Seriously though, the top / bottom posting controversy has popped
up in many groups and undoubtedly will for a long, long time.

And will forever, because there is no single best approach for
all situations, even if you thoughtfully choose the best approach.

I personally prefer point by point interleaved comments
most of the time, but still use top posting when I am
making a general comment on the entire post.

Even with quoting, there will never be just one viable approach.

The big advantage with quoting everything is that its
all there for anyone to read. Not everyone either gets
ever post or chooses to read every post in a thread
and if the entire post is quoted, its trivially available
for anyone who either hasnt seen the context or
has chosen to be selective about what he has read.

Is there anyone out there who dates back to the
pre-commercialized Internet that could offer a little light?

We saw the same endless controversy about how to do it.

What we no longer see much of is obsessive demands
about how big sigs should be. There were plenty who
chucked a tantrum whenever a sig was more than 2
or 3 lines with the pre commercialised internet.

There was some sense in minimising the quoting then
because that was mostly done with very low bandwidth
systems. Quite a bit of it well below 2400 bps too.

My own theory:
Usenet was a sort of bulletin board in the early Internet days.

And there were real bulletin boards well before usenet too.

With plenty of jackbooted thugs running them.

It had a hell of a capacity to attract a particular type of control freak.

We even saw some examples of users ending up in jail.

Back in the distant past, a posting had to "percolate" from server
to server - no dedicated commercial newsgroup servers. There
was a measure of randomness to how a post got from someone in
one area to someone who looks to a different server for his messages.

usenet has always had that sort of randomness and still does.

Servers are up and down, universities and individuals
maintained the systems. They did it for love (for lack of
a better word) if another interest came along . . . well a
server might suffer . . . personal priorities get into the act.

Yep, plenty of systems went flat on their face as soon as
the individual 'running' them went away for a few days etc.

With that scenario (and remember they were working with
text editors - not newsreaders) , it is all too likely that the
reply was on some servers before the question. In that
environment, bottom posting does make a lot of sense.

Thats arguable, even tho bottom posting was much more common.

The main problem with top posting is that it doesnt maintain
the normal logical progression with new stuff after older stuff.

But that's only my theory. I only got on line with DOS and Windows,

A mere child.

There were some commercial system pre the commercialised
internet too, like Compuserve for example.

the Internet was already there for me (after
calling up a dialer, winsock, and then a browser).

Today commercial interests support usenet for a profit.

Hardly any do actually. There are quite a few ISPs
that dont even bother with a news server at all now.

You pay them, or your ISP does.

Many ISPs still run their own.

They make it their business to see that a post is carried on all servers.

Most of them dont actually. Basicaly because only a tiny subset
of net users even know what usenet is, let alone actually use it.

In this environment, and with good newsreaders,
top posting makes more sense to me.

Top posting is certainly better if you are making a
general comment, because its readable most easily.

Its not as useful when point by point interleaved
comments make it much easier to see what a
particular bit of the new material applys to tho.

 

[default]

And will forever, because there is no single best approach for
all situations, even if you thoughtfully choose the best approach.

I personally prefer point by point interleaved comments
most of the time, but still use top posting when I am
making a general comment on the entire post.

Even with quoting, there will never be just one viable approach.

Interleaving an interleave - doing something I hate to try to read.

Can you foresee a newsreader that ameliorates the problem? Making one
approach the correct one?

The big advantage with quoting everything is that its
all there for anyone to read. Not everyone either gets
ever post or chooses to read every post in a thread
and if the entire post is quoted, its trivially available
for anyone who either hasnt seen the context or
has chosen to be selective about what he has read.

Right on.
Easier to look at the lines of text in the header, know the poster (or
their moniker) and read what might be relevant.

We saw the same endless controversy about how to do it.

What we no longer see much of is obsessive demands
about how big sigs should be. There were plenty who
chucked a tantrum whenever a sig was more than 2
or 3 lines with the pre commercialised internet.

Sigs waste bandwidth - if bandwidth is precious the sig is wasteful.
And . . . one do wonder about the ego behind some of the sigs.

There was some sense in minimising the quoting then
because that was mostly done with very low bandwidth
systems. Quite a bit of it well below 2400 bps too.


And there were real bulletin boards well before usenet too.

Sure BBS dial in and load/upload - but it was local and inbred>

With plenty of jackbooted thugs running them.

Ego again.

It had a hell of a capacity to attract a particular type of control freak.

We even saw some examples of users ending up in jail.


usenet has always had that sort of randomness and still does.

Yes. But now money and "market share" is involved. Let a monopoly
come in, and the picture changes - the pseudo (gov established and
protected) "free market" M$ espouses.

Yep, plenty of systems went flat on their face as soon as
the individual 'running' them went away for a few days etc.


Thats arguable, even tho bottom posting was much more common.

The main problem with top posting is that it doesnt maintain
the normal logical progression with new stuff after older stuff.

Well . . . One may read the new post, a reply or two, then bottom
posting gets old fast. The better one's memory the faster it gets
old.

And I'm one of the dinosaurs that is still getting acclimated to a
scroll wheel - so I do have that bias as well.

But then I'm on dial-up - with more bandwidth I might not mind it so
much (and with a reader that color codes everything for me)

A mere child.

Yeah, well. That's life.

There were some commercial system pre the commercialised
internet too, like Compuserve for example.

I would consider Compuserve just an early form of AOL and THE
commercialization of the Internet.

Hardly any do actually. There are quite a few ISPs
that dont even bother with a news server at all now.

There are - the reason I left my last ISP "we aren't going to provide
binary groups in the future because most people that use them download
pornography" Yeah, so I like pornography, and music, and being able
to swap schematics and drawings - and who gave you the right?

Many ISPs still run their own.

Not in the boonies. Poor ISP's, but some do have nice news server
accounts.

Most of them dont actually. Basicaly because only a tiny subset
of net users even know what usenet is, let alone actually use it.

That I don't understand - sure a tiny subset of ALL the plug and play
idiots, but certainly a significant number nonetheless?

Top posting is certainly better if you are making a
general comment, because its readable most easily.

Its not as useful when point by point interleaved
comments make it much easier to see what a
particular bit of the new material applys to tho.

So your opinion would be use top/bottom/interleave as the conditions
warrant?

 

[Rod Speed]

Interleaving an interleave - doing something I hate to try to read.

Yeah, some dont even care for the original interleaved
comments much, particularly when I break the original
sentance to make a specific comment on part of a
sentance. Some chuck a tantrum when I do it, tho thats
mostly when I'm making snide remarks about their original
shit. Its mostly the snide remarks they are really objecting to.

Can you foresee a newsreader that ameliorates the problem?

Nope, because, like I said, what's
best varys with the circumstances.

Making one approach the correct one?

There is never going to be a 'correct' approach and you'll
never get everyone to agree on just one newsreader either.

Right on.
Easier to look at the lines of text in the header, know the
poster (or their moniker) and read what might be relevant.

Yeah, plenty skim thru threads looking for the most interesting stuff.

Sigs waste bandwidth

Sure, but with the modern approach to quoting,
its a pretty small part of the total bandwidth.

What I really object to is the morons that end up
with close to a full screen of crap, with their comment
embedded in that crap. It can be hard to find their comment.

- if bandwidth is precious the sig is wasteful.

Sure, but bandwith hasnt been precious for a long time now.

And . . . one do wonder about the ego behind some of the sigs.

Yeah, thats mostly what its about. Not always tho, when
someone like svend has one, its handy to see his site listed etc.

Its also arguably useful with MVPs etc if you think that
its more likely that they will have something useful to
say, more likely to be useful than the average poster.

And again, its also a matter of style too. I have
absolutely nothing in the way of salutations or
signoffs at all. That can look a bit blunt at times.

Sure BBS dial in and load/upload - but it was local and inbred>

Nope, there were networks of those like fido.

Ego again.

Yeah, tho with some it was more that they
didnt approve of some of the language used too.

Thats another thing you'll never get agreement on.

Yes. But now money and "market share" is involved.

Not much with usenet.

Let a monopoly come in, and the picture changes - the pseudo
(gov established and protected) "free market" M$ espouses.

I think most of that is just mindless conspiracy theorys.

usenet has always been about as close to pure anarchy as
you are ever likely to personally experience in the first world.

Thats always been one of its attractions for some.

Well . . . One may read the new post, a reply or two, then bottom
posting gets old fast. The better one's memory the faster it gets old.

True, but again, there will always be different approaches to reading too.

Some read all or almost all posts in a particular group.

Many more skim thru looking for threads that interest them.

Some skim a lot more than others do and one advantage with
bottom posting is that you can read the entire subthread better.
Its always going to be more awkward if every addition is top
posted.

But the big problem with bottom posting is that
you cant skim thru the thread reading the latest
material in a high percentage of the posts as
because you have to scroll down to the bottom.

And I'm one of the dinosaurs that is still getting acclimated
to a scroll wheel - so I do have that bias as well.

Yeah, tho I dont normally use the scroll wheel to get to the
bottom of the post, I normally drag the slider because thats quicker.

But then I'm on dial-up

Wota dinosaur |-)

- with more bandwidth I might not mind it so much
(and with a reader that color codes everything for me)

Yeah, that certainly makes things more readable.

Yeah, well. That's life.

I would consider Compuserve just an early form
of AOL and THE commercialization of the Internet.

Nope, they were both quite separate to the net and
eventually realised that the net was where it mattered.

There are - the reason I left my last ISP "we aren't
going to provide binary groups in the future because
most people that use them download pornography"
Yeah, so I like pornography, and music, and being able to
swap schematics and drawings - and who gave you the right?

Sure, thats another area that there will never be
agreement about, both with the net and outside it.

Not in the boonies.

Some do.

Poor ISP's, but some do have nice news server accounts.

I dont bother with ISP news servers myself.

That I don't understand - sure a tiny subset of ALL the plug and
play idiots, but certainly a significant number nonetheless?

Sure, but a tiny subset of those who use the net.

So your opinion would be use top/bottom/
interleave as the conditions warrant?

Yep. I use all 3, but mostly interleave.

I mainly bottom post when there are a few overs quoted,
and they have all been bottom posted, to maintain the flow.

A mixture of top and bottom posting with quite
a few overs can be very hard to read, particularly
with the mess the quoting usually ends up as.

 

[Eric Gisin]

You will see four replies to your post, about an hour apart. That could not
happen 15-25 years ago, it took hours or days for the article to propogate
around the world.

Since people could not remember the context of prior posts, it was essential
to read both the context and reply in order. Today, I read four messages at
once, and do not even care to see the context, only the reply.

Of course a lengthy post may require a response to each paragraph, then the
preferred style is interleaved. Bottom posting sucks.

 

[chrisv]

In this environment, and with good newsreaders, top posting makes more
sense to me.

Idiot.

 

[Rod Speed]

Fool.

Idiot.