Another vote for top posting

[Guest guest]

Why does it matter how much you have to scroll to read a top post? I

can usually tell from just glancing at what I don't have to scroll to

read in a top post whether I want to read all of it or hit the delete

button. If it's something I WANT to read, I don't mind scrolling to

read the rest of it. However, it's rather annoying to have to scroll

on EVERY post just to find out if it's something I want to take my

time to read.

I suppose in the end we'll all still have our preferences. But just

thought I'd throw in my vote for top posting.

Fern

Re: Another vote for top posting

> In a message dated 1/19/04 11:17:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > This is my ideal also ... if each person responds at the top,

there is

> > usually no scrolling involved, unless you want to scroll down to

read

> > the comments from the previous poster if you haven't already read

> > them. If everyone responds at the top, the order of the comments

is

> > intact from bottom to top, with the most recent at the top.

>

> Ironically, your post took up two pages in my screen, so I had to do

a fair

> amount of scrolling to read it. Scrolling is required for most

emails for most

> messages, and the main problem with bottom-posting is injudicious

editing.

> There's just absolutely no reason to post at the bottom of an entire

text--

> just delete what isn't relevant.

>

> But you bring up a great point: one way to determine whether

top-posting is

> permissable for a given post is how much room it takes up. If you

have less

> than one page total (in an email browser), then top-post. Ideally,

top-posting

> would be done when you can see the other person's text without

scrolling. But

> if you have something longer than one or two paragraphs, most folks

will have

> to scroll to read it, and it's much easier to follow if you've

posted your

> comments under a judiciously edited piece of text.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Because I, and I'm sure others, read many of the posts on this list I do not

find it necessary to read the entire message being responded to. I still

like the response at the top as it is not a problem for me to scroll down

through a long post if I need to know more.

My monitor is 17 " with 1024 x 768 resolution. So if is using a 15 "

monitor with 800 x 600 resolution his monitor will only show about half the

text that mine does.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Chris-

I think the rule should be more stringent than that. Different people have

different screen resolutions, so you can't always judge what will be

annoying for other people. IMO top-posting is acceptable when (a) the

portion of the post being quoted is reasonably small (it's just wasteful

and unnecessary in most cases to backquote more than a few lines) and (

the response is a single unbroken paragraph on the short side. This way

you can check the flow of conversation with a glance. Otherwise, forget it.

>But you bring up a great point: one way to determine whether top-posting is

>permissable for a given post is how much room it takes up. If you have

less

>than one page total (in an email browser), then top-post. Ideally,

>top-posting

>would be done when you can see the other person's text without scrolling.

-

[Guest guest]

I do not walk a Bible based path, but the Bible does say " Do unto others as

you would have them do unto you. " Or words to that effect. So I will

continue to format my replies in the manner that I would like to receive

them.

Because so many in this list do not sign their posts I will attempt from now

on to leave the " From " line under the " Original Message " line.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Fern [mailto:readnwrite@...]

Why does it matter how much you have to scroll to read a top post? I

can usually tell from just glancing at what I don't have to scroll to

read in a top post whether I want to read all of it or hit the delete

button. If it's something I WANT to read, I don't mind scrolling to

read the rest of it. However, it's rather annoying to have to scroll

on EVERY post just to find out if it's something I want to take my

time to read.

I suppose in the end we'll all still have our preferences. But just

thought I'd throw in my vote for top posting.

Fern

[Guest guest]

Another reason for top posting is that when there are many responses to a

post we have to " reread " the same post for each bottom posted response.

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

<BEGINNING OF POST>

<SUZE SAID> what is wrong with that? it's consistent and everything's

separated by a

> unique character sequence.

<BRANDON REPLIED> Well, for one, I had no idea to whom you were responding.

Also, it took me a while to figure out that the top line was yours.

<SUZE REPLIES BACK> my mail program (outlook 2000) doesn't automatically put

" quoting so-and-so " , although i noticed that when i post from the website,

the website does. my mail program puts the following:

<SUZE IS QUOTING SOMETHING FROM AN EMAIL PAUL SENT>

RE: Another vote for top posting

<END OF QUOTE FROM PAUL'S EMAIL>

SUZE CONTINUES TO REPLY: i think that takes up too much space to have in

every email and is too much info to boot. i could type in " quoting

so-and-so " but that seems unnecessarily time consuming. i am open to

suggestions however. (can i set up outlook 2000 to say " quoting so-and-so?)

also if there's a clearer way to indicate the top line was mine, i'm open

for suggestions. i would hate to actually type that in every time though.

although i guess the upside is that it would cut down on list mail because i

wouldn't post as much!

either that or i could describe every component of my posts in detail in all

caps <weg>

<END OF POST>

<BEGINNING OF SIG LINE>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

<END OF SIG LINE>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/04 6:30:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> I have little time to scroll to the bottom of long messages for the reply

> so

> mostly I just delete them.

Judith,

For the third time:

The practice you are describing, putting short messages at the end of long,

unedited messages, is just as bad as top-posting. The proper form of posting

that benefits everyone is to quote only the relevant pieces of material, and no

more than what is necessary to give context, and delete the rest, and then

respond to each point directly below it.

You are pitting one bad practice against another. Contrasting top-posting to

reckless and stupid forms of bottom posting doesn't validate top-posting. If

you actually have a good reason to top-post, you should contrast it to

*proper* forms of bottom-posting.

Chris