Top Posting, And Posting: Sort Of Like Waxing

I just learned that I am a "Top Poster". Most of us here are. It's
considered bad net-etiquette to post on top of what the last or another
poster wrote. Did you know that? I didn't, and despite what I've read about
top posting it makes sense to top post. It's easier to follow from poster to
poster when top posting is used. Perhaps within a single post top posting
can be troublesome as the reader has to scroll down.

I'm mostly interested in what the last person said, not the prior person.

At work I've argued for, and implemented putting the most recent record on
top of earlier records.

I've just reviewed some posts here. Some posters don't even include the post
they are responding to. Who cares? It still works.

I find that most of the Euro-posters avoid top posting but instead snip the
irrelevant parts of the post they are responding to and then insert their
thoughts after a quoted section of an earlier poster. This is considered
"proper". I do that only when I am "conversing" or responding line by line.

Could it be that we are a small group and developed a short hand way to
communicate? Like among good friends or in a marriage some of the formality
is discarded as unnecessary and inefficient. It's ok because of the
"closeness" with the person. Or maybe not. Maybe I've just been a clod. But
then so are you probably.

Maybe we're like "jazz posters".


Feel free to post on top of this, and don't feel the need to snip and quote,
but please help me understand why I was told not to top post in RBT. Maybe
because it's a bicycle group and there hasn't been a fight in a day or so?
(Actually I was told in a kind way off the NG)

Do you remove a hard wax when you need to put a softer wax over it? No- only
if it the wax will be too thick, or if there is some other good reason to
remove it. Do you put a hard wax over a soft wax? Not normally, and only if
there is a specific reason to.

Are we losing contributors because of our bad manners?

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

Fight the urge$%#^^^^^ No, ack, hands doing what they want... (or
similar Dilbertisms)

Guilty as charged. And I totally agree - snip and intersperse is
appropriate and 'nice' if dissecting a message, but a pain in the butt
if you are changing the thought or responding in total. Several of us
harken back to the days of true net.news and being frugal with typing
because it all was sent over a 1200baud serial link.(remember baud?
back before everyone had some sort of high speed connection direct to
the internet)

Bottom line - I'll do what seems to be most readable and helps me get my
point across best (and friendliest if possible).

Marsh Jones


Gary Jacobson wrote:

I just learned that I am a "Top Poster". Most of us here are. It's
considered bad net-etiquette to post on top of what the last or another
poster wrote. Did you know that? I didn't, and despite what I've read about
top posting it makes sense to top post. It's easier to follow from poster to
poster when top posting is used. Perhaps within a single post top posting
can be troublesome as the reader has to scroll down.

I'm mostly interested in what the last person said, not the prior person.

At work I've argued for, and implemented putting the most recent record on
top of earlier records.

I've just reviewed some posts here. Some posters don't even include the post
they are responding to. Who cares? It still works.

I find that most of the Euro-posters avoid top posting but instead snip the
irrelevant parts of the post they are responding to and then insert their
thoughts after a quoted section of an earlier poster. This is considered
"proper". I do that only when I am "conversing" or responding line by line.

Could it be that we are a small group and developed a short hand way to
communicate? Like among good friends or in a marriage some of the formality
is discarded as unnecessary and inefficient. It's ok because of the
"closeness" with the person. Or maybe not. Maybe I've just been a clod. But
then so are you probably.

Maybe we're like "jazz posters".


Feel free to post on top of this, and don't feel the need to snip and quote,
but please help me understand why I was told not to top post in RBT. Maybe
because it's a bicycle group and there hasn't been a fight in a day or so?
(Actually I was told in a kind way off the NG)

Do you remove a hard wax when you need to put a softer wax over it? No- only
if it the wax will be too thick, or if there is some other good reason to
remove it. Do you put a hard wax over a soft wax? Not normally, and only if
there is a specific reason to.

Are we losing contributors because of our bad manners?

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

I remember someone having a little spat about his sometime ago but I'm
afraid I read it as just a little power play. I agree with Marsh and Gary,
you read the new post first and then scroll back to check out what came
before if need be.

On 1/5/04 5:35 am, "Marsh Jones"
wrote:

Fight the urge$%#^^^^^ No, ack, hands doing what they want... (or
similar Dilbertisms)

Guilty as charged. And I totally agree - snip and intersperse is
appropriate and 'nice' if dissecting a message, but a pain in the butt
if you are changing the thought or responding in total. Several of us
harken back to the days of true net.news and being frugal with typing
because it all was sent over a 1200baud serial link.(remember baud?
back before everyone had some sort of high speed connection direct to
the internet)

Bottom line - I'll do what seems to be most readable and helps me get my
point across best (and friendliest if possible).

Marsh Jones


Gary Jacobson wrote:

I just learned that I am a "Top Poster". Most of us here are. It's
considered bad net-etiquette to post on top of what the last or another
poster wrote. Did you know that? I didn't, and despite what I've read about
top posting it makes sense to top post. It's easier to follow from poster to
poster when top posting is used. Perhaps within a single post top posting
can be troublesome as the reader has to scroll down.

I'm mostly interested in what the last person said, not the prior person.

At work I've argued for, and implemented putting the most recent record on
top of earlier records.

I've just reviewed some posts here. Some posters don't even include the post
they are responding to. Who cares? It still works.

I find that most of the Euro-posters avoid top posting but instead snip the
irrelevant parts of the post they are responding to and then insert their
thoughts after a quoted section of an earlier poster. This is considered
"proper". I do that only when I am "conversing" or responding line by line.

Could it be that we are a small group and developed a short hand way to
communicate? Like among good friends or in a marriage some of the formality
is discarded as unnecessary and inefficient. It's ok because of the
"closeness" with the person. Or maybe not. Maybe I've just been a clod. But
then so are you probably.

Maybe we're like "jazz posters".


Feel free to post on top of this, and don't feel the need to snip and quote,
but please help me understand why I was told not to top post in RBT. Maybe
because it's a bicycle group and there hasn't been a fight in a day or so?
(Actually I was told in a kind way off the NG)

Do you remove a hard wax when you need to put a softer wax over it? No- only
if it the wax will be too thick, or if there is some other good reason to
remove it. Do you put a hard wax over a soft wax? Not normally, and only if
there is a specific reason to.

Are we losing contributors because of our bad manners?

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

I disagree. If the text of the post to which you are responding is
necessary to the understanding of your reply, it needs to go first. If it
is not, it needs to be deleted (this was, of course, of much more
importance when most people had slow modem connections - it still is
important when there are folks out there with limited space for saving
their e-mail).
One of the variables here is that many of those rules of ediquitte
(which I could never spell correctly) have to do with e-mail
corrispondance, rather than net-news posting. Since many of us read the
ski posts by e-mail, those rules should be kept in mind.
-Ken

************************************************** *********
Kenneth Salzberg
Hamline University
School of Law (651) 523-2354
1536 Hewitt Ave.
Sisu Skier - 50K Club St. Paul, MN 55104
************************************************** ****************

Then I'll disagree with Ken on this - it's not too hard to scroll down
to see the text being responded to. Sometimes when a poster 'bottom
posts', or intersperses comments inside the text being responded to,
it can be hard to find, especially when the earlier text is long. The
top posting comments are always easy to locate.

In general, I think the best way varies with the situation. If the
earlier email is short, so that it and the response are all visible on
the screen, then it matters little, IMHO. But I've seen a number of
posts where the earlier email is several screens long and it's a bit
hard to find the reply text.

Wouldn't it be nice if there could be a link at the top of the text
that would take you right to the relevant point in the text, as we
often get in web pages? Not likely to happen tho.

The only case I've seen that inspired me to gently (I hope!) chide an
individual poster is a frequent poster on another list I follow
(iBobs), where his email program does not insert the common '' at the
start of each line in the original text. He bottom posts, and it's
always a challenge to parse where his comments begin.

Erik

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Salzberg"
To: "Multiple recipients of list NORDIC-SKI"

Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 6:05 AM
Subject: Top Posting, And Posting: Sort Of Like Waxing


I disagree. If the text of the post to which you are responding is
necessary to the understanding of your reply, it needs to go first.
If it
is not, it needs to be deleted (this was, of course, of much more
importance when most people had slow modem connections - it still is
important when there are folks out there with limited space for
saving
their e-mail).
One of the variables here is that many of those rules of ediquitte
(which I could never spell correctly) have to do with e-mail
corrispondance, rather than net-news posting. Since many of us read
the
ski posts by e-mail, those rules should be kept in mind.
-Ken

************************************************** *********
Kenneth Salzberg
Hamline University
School of Law (651) 523-2354
1536 Hewitt Ave.
Sisu Skier - 50K Club St. Paul, MN 55104
************************************************** ****************

(Erik Brooks) wrote
Then I'll disagree with Ken on this - it's not too hard to scroll down

I agree with Ken. I prefer to read a post where the previous post is
clipped down to the bare minimum just as a reference for your post.
Too many people respond and include the whole damn post, even if it's
pages long. All you need a one liner like above. If you include the
pages of text, then you're screwing people with a dial up connection.

Jay Wenner

On 1 May 2004 08:49:36 -0700, (Erik Brooks) wrote:

Then I'll disagree with Ken on this - it's not too hard to scroll down
to see the text being responded to.

In writing for usenet, you have to consider that what you write is
being read by dozens or even hundreds or thousands of people. So the
question is, should you be lazy, top post, and not delete superfluous
stuff to save a few seconds. Considering that many, many other people
will have to scroll down to read the text being responded too, this
seems very bad to me. It's putting the burden on the readers.

If you are writing to one or perhaps just a few other people (such as
in email), then a reasonable argument could be made that you shouldn't
spend as much time to make your writing super easy to read, as their
is more of a one-to-one correspondence between your time and your
reader's time.

But in a one-to-may medium like usenet (and mailing lists) it's
selfish to not spend time to restructure your posts to save the many,
many readers a few seconds.

JT

You mispelled "corrispondance" too...

(Kenneth Salzberg) wrote in message ...
I disagree. If the text of the post to which you are responding is
necessary to the understanding of your reply, it needs to go first. If it
is not, it needs to be deleted (this was, of course, of much more
importance when most people had slow modem connections - it still is
important when there are folks out there with limited space for saving
their e-mail).
One of the variables here is that many of those rules of ediquitte
(which I could never spell correctly) have to do with e-mail
corrispondance,

You mispelled "corrispondance" too...

rather than net-news posting. Since many of us read the
ski posts by e-mail, those rules should be kept in mind.
-Ken

************************************************** *********
Kenneth Salzberg
Hamline University
School of Law (651) 523-2354
1536 Hewitt Ave.
Sisu Skier - 50K Club St. Paul, MN 55104
************************************************** ****************

You mispelled "corrispondance" too...

Jay Tegeder
On the podium if the right people don't show up!" JT

In article , Kenneth Salzberg wrote:
I disagree. If the text of the post to which you are responding is
necessary to the understanding of your reply, it needs to go first. If it
is not, it needs to be deleted (this was, of course, of much more
importance when most people had slow modem connections - it still is
important when there are folks out there with limited space for saving
their e-mail).

Also, lots of "dead quoted text" (especially when people seemingly
aren't aware that they're quoting 4-5 old, very long, messages just
because they didn't bother to look further than the "Me too."-reply)
makes reading mailing lists as digests a less than enjoyable experience.

Excessive quoting is bad, sensible quoting is good - then post the reply
whereever you want.

One of the variables here is that many of those rules of ediquitte
(which I could never spell correctly) have to do with e-mail
corrispondance, rather than net-news posting. Since many of us read the
ski posts by e-mail, those rules should be kept in mind.

I wasn't aware that it was that much of a difference between the
netiquette in e-mail and news communication - at least when it comes to
public communication like mailing lists and news groups. Maybe I'm a
very "dry" corresponder, but I do try to apply the "minimal relevant
quote"-system even in everyday chatty e-mails. It's just easier to
follow.


/Tomas

--
Caps and foobar are normally not parts of my address.

I guess I misundersetimated my own posting protocal... That line was
an example of how the English language has been trashed and misused
for years. I'm sure I butcher just about every one of my posts.
Anyway, who cares if you top post, bottom post, intersperse etc. Many
rock climbers "top rope" but I don't know if they "top post" when
posting on their newsgroup... Not being a rockclimber, I wouldn't
know... I'll continue to post any way I want to. If someone has a
problem with that, it's their problem, not mine...

Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT


"Gary Jacobson" wrote in message . ..
I just learned that I am a "Top Poster". Most of us here are. It's
considered bad net-etiquette to post on top of what the last or another
poster wrote. Did you know that? I didn't, and despite what I've read about
top posting it makes sense to top post. It's easier to follow from poster to
poster when top posting is used. Perhaps within a single post top posting
can be troublesome as the reader has to scroll down.

I'm mostly interested in what the last person said, not the prior person.

At work I've argued for, and implemented putting the most recent record on
top of earlier records.

I've just reviewed some posts here. Some posters don't even include the post
they are responding to. Who cares? It still works.

I find that most of the Euro-posters avoid top posting but instead snip the
irrelevant parts of the post they are responding to and then insert their
thoughts after a quoted section of an earlier poster. This is considered
"proper". I do that only when I am "conversing" or responding line by line.

Could it be that we are a small group and developed a short hand way to
communicate? Like among good friends or in a marriage some of the formality
is discarded as unnecessary and inefficient. It's ok because of the
"closeness" with the person. Or maybe not. Maybe I've just been a clod. But
then so are you probably.

Maybe we're like "jazz posters".


Feel free to post on top of this, and don't feel the need to snip and quote,
but please help me understand why I was told not to top post in RBT. Maybe
because it's a bicycle group and there hasn't been a fight in a day or so?
(Actually I was told in a kind way off the NG)

Do you remove a hard wax when you need to put a softer wax over it? No- only
if it the wax will be too thick, or if there is some other good reason to
remove it. Do you put a hard wax over a soft wax? Not normally, and only if
there is a specific reason to.

Are we losing contributors because of our bad manners?

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY