Where to post replies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gene L.
  • Start date Start date
G

Gene L.

When replying to a news message, is it preferred to have the reply beneath
the message being addressed or above it? I suppose there are supporters of
each, but where do the people who answer these questions prefer the reply to
be?
It would be great if the message trail were uniform.
 
I prefer top-posting, and I always look right there at the top, since that's
the first thing I see when I open the message. Besides, I've already read
the quoted text in the previous message, I prefer it stay completely out of
the way unless I actually need it. Really, how many times do you or anyone
else actually refer to the quoted text unless it's an inline reply? If I
need to read the quoted text, especially if I need to read a lot of it, I
prefer to go beck to the original message (the one being replied to), since
it's less cluttered with <carets>. If I haven't already read the previous
messages in the thread, I usually start from the beginning and read them
all, in order to see what else has already transpired. Really, there is no
good reason to support bottom-posting except habit and the behavior of your
newsreader.

PS -- I only insult bottom dwell... er, posters when they are being
insulting!
 
When replying to a news message, is it preferred to have the reply beneath
the message being addressed or above it? I suppose there are supporters of
each, but where do the people who answer these questions prefer the reply to
be?
Click to expand...


Please don't start an argument about this here.

It would be great if the message trail were uniform.
Click to expand...


It will not be uniform, since there are avid supporters of both
top-posting and bottom-posting. And there are also people like me, who
prefer in-line posting, putting a reply after each subject desired to
comment on.
 
When replying to a news message, is it preferred to have the reply beneath
the message being addressed or above it? I suppose there are supporters of
each, but where do the people who answer these questions prefer the reply to
be?
It would be great if the message trail were uniform.
Click to expand...

I usually read a book from top to bottom of page . ( post and replies
downwards ) .
 
Gene said:
When replying to a news message, is it preferred to have the reply
beneath the message being addressed or above it? I suppose there are
supporters of each, but where do the people who answer these questions
prefer the reply to be?
It would be great if the message trail were uniform.
Click to expand...



I've been on Usenet for about ten years
and though it makes more sense (to me) to top post...
I've stopped doing it years ago because it seems to always draw criticism
 
philo said:
I've been on Usenet for about ten years
and though it makes more sense (to me) to top post...
I've stopped doing it years ago because it seems to always draw criticism
Click to expand...

Yet it seems to be the most plausible in some instances, while in others it
is better to insert or place it at the end, as in this case.
Moral: Be flexible. Harry.
 
When replying to a news message, is it preferred to have the reply beneath
the message being addressed or above it? I suppose there are supporters of
each, but where do the people who answer these questions prefer the reply to
be?
It would be great if the message trail were uniform.
Click to expand...

Only dumb-asses top post. Case closed.
 
When replying to a news message, is it preferred to have the reply beneath
the message being addressed or above it? I suppose there are supporters of
each, but where do the people who answer these questions prefer the reply to
be?
It would be great if the message trail were uniform.
Click to expand...

Having been on Usenet since 84, and having been through times where not
all posts are on a server, it only makes sense to reply to posts as if
you didn't know about the rest of the thread.

The basic thought is to trim any of the quoted part that isn't needed to
understand your reply, and to post your reply in a manner that allows
the discussion to flow.

Do you normally read from the Bottom UP or the Top Down?

I bottom reply because the reader can see what I'm replying to before he
reads my reply - in case the thread was broken or missing posts.
 
I've been on Usenet for about ten years
and though it makes more sense (to me) to top post...
I've stopped doing it years ago because it seems to always draw criticism
Click to expand...

Top posting didn't become a issue, meaning it wasn't done for the most
part, until Microsoft found out about Usenet and added the ability for
OE to access Usenet - since MS treated Usenet like email, instead of the
way it had always worked, MS's OE client put the cursor at the TOP of a
reply/quoted area - as is expected in an email where you have a captive
recipient - which is not how Usenet works.
 
Many thanks for all the replies. Although different, each one make sense. I
did not mean to submit anything controversial - it was a sincere inquiry
addressing people who know what they are doing. - Thanks again.
Gene L
 
I read top to bottom (and left to right), and I'm perpetually irritated by
having to scroll through all that stuff that I've almost always already
read. If the cursor in a "proper" newsreader automatically zooms to the
bottom of the message, that quoted text zooms right by and you still have to
scroll to read it. You scroll up, I scroll down. Is there really any
difference? In fact, if reading from top to bottom is the issue, when I open
a message in OE/WM, the cursor is usually a lot closer to the beginning of
the quoted text than it would be in a "proper" newsreader.

I agree with your explanation of why there is quoted text in the first
place, and with your suggestions re trimming, and even with your opening
statement regarding uniformity. I consider the rest of your reply to be
supporting a tradition largely based upon faulty logic and false
assumptions. I've read a lot of opinions supporting bottom-posting, and I've
yet to see a legitimate reason to do so, one that isn't based upon folklore,
personal preferences, and ultimately specious arguments like yours. (Nothing
personal, I'm just replying to your points.)

The most irritating thing about bottom-posted replies, for me, is that a lot
of users don't bother to hit enter before starting the reply, leaving their
first line tucked tight against the bottom of the quoted text, causing my
eyes to miss it as being distinct from the quoted text. A blank line is more
intuitively recognized by my eyes as a delimiter than the absence of a caret
or two. This is especially true if it's a single-line paragraph, even more
true if, as is so sadly the case these days, the writer eschews the use of
grammar and punctuation. Same goes for inline replies. C'mon, people, a
single carriage return increases the size of the post by next to nothing.
Perhaps those "proper" newsreaders have a setting to automatically add a
carriage return?

While I'm at it, there is another practice that I'd like to encourage:
Stating at the top of an inline reply that it is an inline reply, instead of
leaving me to wonder what's up. Even if it's only a momentary, almost
subconscious confusion, it breaks my stride.

Tag, you're it, <g>.
 
Interesting. Says top-posting is all Microsoft's fault. OE, to be specific
(though he cites Outlook when we all know it's OE's newsreader that OL
uses.) That, and it's primarily used by and for clueless newbies. I will
note, however, that the author(s) also imply that bottom-posting is
primarily supported by old fogies from the pre-OE era, the end of which also
happens to coincide with the beginning of the mainstreaming of personal
computing and the end of that exclusivity of geeks that existed prior to
then.

Overall, the article has a definite bias toward bottom-posting and barely
hidden disdain for top-posting. The discussion is almost entirely about
bottom-posting and inline posting. The author(s) "own" statements that are
pro-bottom-posting, but typically start statements that are
anti-bottom-posting and/or supporting top-posting with attributions: "Some
say...", etc. Top-posting is also seen as truly justified only in emails.

Interesting, and seemingly well-detailed and authoritative, but flawed. It's
hard to accept the veracity of an author with such prejudices.
 
Interesting. Says top-posting is all Microsoft's fault. OE, to be specific
(though he cites Outlook when we all know it's OE's newsreader that OL
uses.) That, and it's primarily used by and for clueless newbies.
Click to expand...

You could have stopped right here (so I'll demonstrate good USEnet
etiquette by trimming your post). Between clueless newbies and the OE
newsreader users, you've got 99.99% of the top posters. That says it
all.
 
As if your opinion was worth spit. You might, some day, try using actual
facts in your arguments. Ad hominem attacks have their place, but only in
addition to a factual discussion. Otherwise, you're just a whining ninny
with nothing to offer of any value.
 
As if your opinion was worth spit. You might, some day, try using actual
facts in your arguments. Ad hominem attacks have their place, but only in
addition to a factual discussion. Otherwise, you're just a whining ninny
with nothing to offer of any value.
Click to expand...

Facts? What facts do we need? Man reads top to bottom. Answers
normally follow questions. USEnet etiquette has ALWAYS been to bottom
post.

Translation: Top posting is done by people who use OE since MS
ignorantly constructed it to violate established newsgroup protocols;
clueless newbies who don't know better; and those that stubbornly
refuse to acknowledge USEnet protocol, even though they do know
better.

You can pick which category you want to be in. Those are facts.
 
Usenet etiquette according to whom? The same simplistic techno-fascists who
think that "man reads from top to bottom" is sufficient reason to impose
such rules? Not only is it simplistic and jingoistic, it's irrelevant. Once
again, how often do you actually read the quoted content before starting in
on the new text? Not very often, I'll bet. Approaching never, I'll bet.
Funny thing is, seems like the ones who scream about it the most are not
even close to belonging to the elite, if wrong, cadre of technocrats that
labeled it "etiquette". Just the opposite, I'll bet that crowd would toss
the likes of you out the door as soon as you opened your mouth, and rush to
hold a press conference to denounce any implied association.
 
I used to like bottom posting but since I have gotten older and had to
increase
text size, I can no longer see the bit of the the answer. Now I prefer top
posting. Other things I like about
top posting are: I don't have to switch from one pane to another to scroll
down using my touch
pad mouse (pain in the ass). After I read a message I can delete it without
moving my touchpad
mouse back up to the top and re-select the item to do so. Sometimes it
opens up causing me more
time to close it, then delete it. I've read the strings and just want to
see an answer. Some strings get get lost in
translation and I don't want to go through everyone to get back on track.
It's funny how these microseconds of time would be such a bother. The
faster computers get the more time
it seems to take for everything else. :-)
I post sometimes but mostly I just try to learn. When I post an answer I
get flamed. I'm to low to say anything
yet, so I just watch.
 
I have been using the computer since 1983, I was introduce to USENET in
through MS Windows DOS 3
I'm not a newbie and just because I like top post does not make me one.
Maybe you have a way to shell into a dos environment
that allows you to see the news posts in a kind of stream that you can just
scroll though. Then it would make sense to
want it in a line by line fashion "like reading" and I would agree. Tell me
how to do thing in a windows environment
so I don't have to spend my time dragging my mouse all over the place.
 
Back
Top