RANT: Post replies at the top!

Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an example from Bill Hughes and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top. Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.

Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have to scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post. Yeesh. /rant

Reply to
Endo
Loading thread data ...

I had a guy in another newsgroup tell me that it was proper etiquette to bottom post. I told him he was a moron!!

But ya, I don't care TOO TOO much where you post. Top posting is easier as you don't have to snip too much....but you bottom posters....if you're just replying and saying, "YES" or some other one word reply...then dammit, do some post editing so we don't have to scroll so much to find out that you had no real opinion!!

Reply to
SB

Amen!

Reply to
Jo Bo

Reply to
twaldron

Deffinately post at top, and clean it up if you want, just don't remove the original, I hate it when I go to look at an answer to a question, but somebody has clipped the question, the heading looks interesting but I don't know what it's about without the original post.

Reply to
Greg

Well, no one really, that's why good bottom-posters trim the quoted material. Bottom-posting it is a useful technique when one wants to address specific points in a post. Like this. Top-posting is an excellent technique for one-word answers.

We do this here monthly now, it seems. Some folks are solidly wedded to top-posting, no matter what. Some to bottom posting, same Rockwell number. You might notice that some of us are more flexable and follow what the previous posters have done, and are less likely to rant that _our_ way is the best and only way -- except to say that it makes it easier on all the other readers. In any case, rant away, but don't expect to shift any minds here or elsewhere. Posting styles are close enough to religious tenents to make no difference.

"Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?

Reply to
Lee Ayrton

A: If not done in a timely manner and to an obvious question it can lead to confusion.

On the contrary, many people purge threads as read and do not keep the conversation tree. Note: this is an example of an interspersed reply.

Q: What is wrong with top posting?

No posting style is the "one true and only" (tm) posting method. Newbies sometimes insist that everyone comply with what is, on Usenet, an inverted posting scheme. In the European language groups left to right, top to bottom is the norm and in conversations that may be one among many, taking place over several days, it is sometimes valuable to remind the reader of what is being commented on, especially if there have been several intervening posts with the common Usenet thread drift. In other instances when several points have are being responded to, an interspersed reply is helpful. Obviously every situation is different and therefore common sense should be your guide. That said, trimming is always a valuable tool in reducing bandwidth and aiding in clarity.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff Lowe

Reply to
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III

Actually, your rant is a good one, but apparently violates all usenet etiquitte standards.

I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more sense.

Reply to
CRWLR

No more so than the person that is using the "Real" taunt not have what it is they think is real.

Reply to
John Benito

Will do!

;-)

Reply to
Kevin

It is frigging simple and not rocket science when in a particular news group when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to figure out? dumb asses beget dumb asses.

Reply to
HarryS

It violates the older netiquette standards from back when threaded newsreaders [even plain text style] were still green.

I prefer the netiquette that says if most folks in a group tend to top post...it is ruder to mixpost than to simply follow the group norm. And except in strict bottom-post groups, it is rude to make an issue of it.

CRWLR proclaimed:

Reply to
Lon

The bottom line ( top line ?) is that the post should be readable, which means that snipping is more important than where you put your comments !

Reply to
Dave Milne

(mono spaced font needed)

Reply to
GW De Lacey

Exactly.

Reply to
dsm

Well, in most cases that's probably correct, but there are exceptions. :)~

Reply to
Jeff Lowe

Precisely.

Reply to
twaldron

Read about your reader. I use the watch (little sunglasses next to message) function to keep track of it all. Then I use synchronize accounts feature. I have no problems.

I can always find a message even if it's not watched by changing my sort options (name, subject, date etc). You can also flag messages. Then you can sort by flagged or watched messages. I am sure most people know about this stuff. Al readers are different. This is just what i do and what works for me.

I have used a few readers and still find myself coming back to Outlook Express 6.

Reply to
Brian Hubley

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.