 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2004A Simple Suggestion for Posting Replies
Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and Alzheimer's dementia" is one example of what became a somewhat long thread. As the replies grow in length, it becomes tedious to scroll to the bottom of every reply. It seems to me that posting your reply at the head of the page would benefit everyone and should be a basic norm of good newsgroup manners. Any reasons not to regularly post your replies at the head of the page? PSsquare > Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in > rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Any reasons not to regularly post your replies at the head of the page? Ya because it makes no sense. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Nick > > Any reasons not to regularly post your replies at the head of the page? > > Ya because it makes no sense. > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > Nick Good links- Nick.  SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank Call me lazy if you want... Jorge >> Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result >> in rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Nick Top posts are better in an era where most USENET posts are read using Google's archive. Just my opinion of course ;) >> Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in >> rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nick > Top posts are better in an era where most USENET posts are read using > Google's archive. > > Just my opinion of course ;) Please elaborate a little more: how does top posting suit better for reading with Google than bottom posting? Severi Because seeing a bottom-posted reply often results in another click (and http transaction). You have to click the link that says "Read the rest of this message". And when I do this, I loose the threaded view. I read the bottom-posted message, and then I have to click the Back button to return to the threaded view. Try it. It really sucks. Really, I just skimmed those articles but bottom-posting doesn't make sense to me unless doing inline replies. It makes me use the mouse before seeing new content. Scrolling down is a pita Maybe bottom-posting is good for antiquated news readers like slrn, but anything modern already gives you a thread. And yes, Google does too. >> Top posts are better in an era where most USENET posts are read using >> Google's archive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Severi > Because seeing a bottom-posted reply often results in another click (and > http transaction). You have to click the link that says "Read the rest > of this message". And when I do this, I loose the threaded view. That is very true. But you have to separate two things: good and bad quoting. If one has to scroll a lot to see the actual reply, then there is too much quotation. That is indeed a bad thing. Also people who bottom post and allways included everything from the previous message are equally evil as top posters :) In that case bottom posting serves no purpose. I mean that the whole point is to include the _essential_ points from previous post in readable manner. Usenet is a public place to have discussion and ask questions and these guidelines have been established only to make the posts more informative and easier to follow - not to piss people off. It is true that by bottom posting and editing someone might lose 2 seconds of his/her precious time but I think it is worth the enormous effort. By the way: do you want to guess why Google has this "Read the rest..." feature? Only because of top posters (and OE). If everyone knew how to properly quote there would be no need to such a thing and all messages could be allways shown completely. Sadly they made a decision to "support" top posting. > Maybe bottom-posting is good for antiquated news readers like slrn, but > anything modern already gives you a thread. And yes, Google does too. What do you mean by "gives you a thread"? And is "antiquated" same as bad or non-graphical? I occasionally use Unix systems and read messages with Pine and I think I'm not "given a thread" but I still think that the news are very readable with it unless people top post... Severi > Top posts are better in an era where most USENET posts are read using > Google's archive. Actually google is a DAMN good reason not to top post. How many messages does google lose? Top posts make no sense usually. Nick Hi! Yes, there are many of them. > Any reasons not to regularly post your replies at the head of the > page? Because people don't know how to quote and answer properly and edit their messages so that they'd be most readable without allways including the whole original text to the reply. That would also decrease the amount of data being transferred. > What are the main reasons that make following a news message > difficult. You are totally correct - that would be a lot easier. > Would it be easier to follow the conversation if the reply or the comment was > allways below the quesion or the quotation? Yes, indeed, it does. > Does my message seem a little trollish? Using Google you can find 1000+ other reasons not to top-post. Severi S. Answer: Because it is confusing! Question: What is wrong with top-posting? I think it is a style thing. I have been "top posting" for 10 years. I view discussions as just that, discussions. I do not engage in the tediousness of responding to each sentence in a message; I treat it as a conversation. I absorb the main points of the message/response and respond to it in totality. If there are specific points I want to rebut or elaborate, I reference them as I would in a conversation. I agree that it saves a lot of effort on the part of the reader. The "bandwidth" concern is simply a boogeyman. It was a REAL concern back when a high speed modem was 28K and users (particularly in Europe) paid "by the bit" for service (seriously). However, in the day of endless spam, $10/mo ISPs, cable modems and dial up modems that have no less than 56K; the bandwidth argument now rings hollow. As it is, many of the proponents of "bottom posting as a bandwidth conservation tool" leave the whole string of previous posts in their posts. Exactly how does that save bandwidth? So, I think today it is more a style thing. I would encourage you to go for ease of use. Personally, I tend to leave just the post to which I am responding in my messages as a reference. Sometimes I forget; but not frequently. SignatureRegards, Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com Ebay Sales: http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=dsc Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution > Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in > rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > PSsquare > I think it is a style thing. I have been "top posting" for 10 years. I > view discussions as just that, discussions. I do not engage in the > tediousness of responding to each sentence in a message; I treat it as a > conversation. You don't have to "engage in the tediousness of responding to each sentence in a message" when quoting properly. You can just quote the essential part of the message you are replying to and go on from then on. I really think it is not a "style thing" I strongly think it is a lazyness thing... > I agree that it saves a lot of effort on the part of the reader. It certainly does and it also makes it easier for someone to get the most information in least time when, for example, searching something with Google groups. > However, in the day of endless spam, $10/mo ISPs, cable modems and dial up > modems that have no less than 56K; the bandwidth argument now rings hollow. And you think there are $10/mo ISPs in every country??? Sigh... Bandwidth is just one very small issue with top-posting - nothing major. But every single byte costs - not directly to user but later when the prices don't fall or they even go up. There are also users who read newsgroups offline: they download new messages and read them later. Every byte counts so please don't make void assumptions. But this is a minor issue, the ease of reading the replies is the major one. > As it is, many of the proponents of "bottom posting as a bandwidth > conservation tool" leave the whole string of previous posts in their posts. > Exactly how does that save bandwidth? Of course it doesn't but intelligent quoting does. Many top-posters not only include the whole last message, but often the whole thread. > So, I think today it is more a style thing. Nope, it is a stupidity thing :) PS. And somehow I think it is also an Outlook Express thing... Severi S. To each his own. I won't try to force my style on you; it seems you would to force your style on me. Your arguments about download time are vapid in a world where over 60% of the email is spam. Get rid of the spam and then talk to me about download time in lesser developed nations. BTW, your response took more bandwidth than either of mine. SignatureRegards, Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com Ebay Sales: http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=dsc Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution "Severi Salminen" <severi.salminen@NOT_THISsiba.fi> wrote in message S. > To each his own. I won't try to force my style on you; it seems you would > to force your style on me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > BTW, your response took more bandwidth than either of mine. What are you responding to? Are you trying to prove why top posting creates message that make no sense? You've done that. Nick > To each his own. I won't try to force my style on you; it seems you would > to force your style on me. No, I'm simply trying to point out why bottom posting should be preferred over top posting. Yes, you can keep using "your sooo cool style" ;-) > Your arguments about download time are vapid in a world where over 60% of > the email is spam. Get rid of the spam and then talk to me about download > time in lesser developed nations. It seems that I have to repeat: "But this is a minor issue, the ease of reading the replies is the major one." You probably missed that sentence. "Lesser developed nations"?? You can't be serious with these comments. > BTW, your response took more bandwidth than either of mine. Umm, and how does that have anything to do with this??? You really don't understand this issue, do you? Well, luckily my messages have better s/n ratios than yours :) Severi S. The Alcoholic Anonymous newsgroup could use someone to lecture them on their evil ways//// "Severi Salminen" <severi.salminen@NOT_THISsiba.fi> Well, luckily my messages have better s/n > ratios than yours :) > > Severi S. > The Alcoholic Anonymous newsgroup could use someone to lecture them on their > evil ways//// You really are Irish! On 2/10/2004 8:20 AM Severi Salminen spake thus: > PS. And somehow I think it [top-posting] is also an Outlook Express thing... A good point often overlooked by those who argue the subject. For instance, check out any of the Microsoft free public newsgroups, like microsoft.public.word.pagelayout, where top-posting abounds (because, as you pointed out, that's the way Outhouse Express does it out of the box), versus the Netscape newsgroups (like netscape.netscape7.windows) where most people bottom post. D "as God intended it" N SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 [Snip] It's a CHANGE<>RESISTANCE thing. If you listen to the bandwidth argument, then, what I've done here is correct. But then there's the REPOST argument. If you see an interesting post that's been reposted (or replied to after the message has fallen off the server), then you're left with confusion and possibly never the full discussion. Wanna have fun sometime, reply to a message thread that's grown and remove all the carats (>) that show who said what. Then it'll look like one person said it all, schizophrenic like... Personally, I don't think it matters anymore. Like someone else has succinctly pointed out, the bandwidth available has drastically changed from the original days of USENET and 1200 and 2400 Baud Modems. I think it's time for a huge update to the USENET Etiquette FAQs and RFCs. Regardless, anyone who gets bent out of shape over it really need to evaluate their lives... Jim P. You will find that long time newsgroupies (not just here either) react violently to such suggestions, no matter how sensible others might find them. I'd agree with you and further suggest cutting the bottom off the message to keep it just long enough to understand the context! > Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in > rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > PSsquare On 2/10/2004 6:12 AM PSsquare spake thus: > Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in > rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Any reasons not to regularly post your replies at the head of the page? Yes. The reason most folks (not all) who post intelligently to Usenet use bottom-posting is because, well, because we read from top to bottom. to determine who said what when. post and makes it very hard the chronological order of a top-posting does; it wrecks like this? This is what is posted "upside-down" to read a sentence that How would you like Does that explain it? SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 > On 2/10/2004 6:12 AM PSsquare spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Does that explain it? I liked that one, lol. But in reality, its not the top posting thats so much of a problem in its self, as the mix of top and bottom posting throughout a thread. first person top posts, next bottom posts and so on and so forth, and it becomes an incoherant rant. If the thread starts off with top posting, I feel, and its only a suggestion, that the entire thread should continue in this way, and vice versa with bottom posting. The first person to reply should decide the method. Again just a suggestion. Brian......................... > > On 2/10/2004 6:12 AM PSsquare spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yes. The reason most folks (not all) who post intelligently to Usenet use > > bottom-posting is because, well, because we read from top to bottom. <snip> > > - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ > > (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Brian......................... There is no such thing as a first poster in a newsgroup. A posts a message. B reads the message, replies and top posts. C who has not yet seen B's reply, replies and bottom posts. Now there are two messages which can claim being first reply one with a top post and one with a bottom post. Bert Who always bottom posts but edits out long messages. >As the replies grow in length, it becomes tedious to scroll to the bottom of >every reply. Then get a better newsreader. -- http://www.spinics.net/photo/ On 2/11/2004 11:20 PM ellis@no.spam spake thus: >>As the replies grow in length, it becomes tedious to scroll to the bottom of >>every reply. > > Then get a better newsreader. Let's face it: *anything* would be better than what the O.P. uses. SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 > >As the replies grow in length, it becomes tedious to scroll to the bottom of > >every reply. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > http://www.spinics.net/photo/ Ctl-End brings you to the bottom. Ctl-Home returns you to the top. Page Down moves you down a page. Page Up moves you up a page. If one of these does not work then the newsreader is broken. Bert Well I have read this thread with great interrest and I come to realize that I've read it before in this group or an other group and nothing have changed. People will continue to top post and bottom post and ...... every now and then a thread like this pops up. Wasting my time and other peoples time because nothing change people continue to top post and bottom post and... Some times I play with the idea to create a news reader that makes it possible to top post to all members that hate top posting while bottom post to those who hate that. I would also include interleave post to make the messages very difficult to read. And I would throw in left posting (for the bleeding libs) and of course right posting for the conservative and for good measure. Of course te I realize that nothing really change and people will top post and bottom post and... My willingness to read messages depends most on how I view the content. Some people's messages are usually so interresting that I could scroll forever just to read the and yet others I wouldn't read eather way they post. I'm closing this message with the hope that everyone who reads it realize that the time it took to read it also took the same amount of your valuable time away from reading messages that pertain to the subject of this group. Because nothing really change... people will top post and ... And now we caan all go back to what we where doing! Have a good day folks... Richard > Some of the better postings in this and other newsgroups can result in > rather long threads of replies. The recent posting on "Photo chemicals and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > PSsquare Richard and others, Since I posted this subject the replies have provided an interesting study in human nature. Some have reacted as though I had told them how to post. It was just a suggestion so it seems a few overreacted. Sure, you are free to post so far down a page that some lose interest. Some rightly noted that in cases where a number of items called for individual replies, posting first defeats that and loses some meaning. Sure, I do split me replies in such cases also. A few seemed to indicated that their newsreader software was not compatible with top posting. I did not understand the details, but save me the details. I accept your constraint. As I followed this, I imagined myself in a meeting in which every person contributed to a conversation only after recounting every previous statement in the meeting. No sane person could survive such a meeting after about the third or fourth speaker. After a thread becomes more than four posts, it becomes analogous to such a meeting. Most of all, this thread has shown me how much we are creatures of habit rather than reason. I first realized the extent of this when my French boss put mustard on his chicken. It is not American's habit to do so. We are ready, in some cases, to vehemently defend our current habit rather than consider alternatives. Whenever I go more than three past comments without finding the next input, I abandon the thread as unworthy of further interest. I don't think my action is very unusual. I wonder if bottom posters similarly quite a thread if they immediately find the reply at the top. Interesting question. Regards, PSsquare > Well I have read this thread with great interrest and I come to realize > that I've read it before in this group or an other group and nothing have [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > > > PSsquare Whenever I go more than three past comments without > finding the next input, I abandon the thread as unworthy of further > interest. I don't think my action is very unusual. No its not, you are the guy tail gating on the freeway that suddenly feels compelled to blow by people at 90 mile an hour only to slam on your brakes half a mile up the road. Say what's the point of that. > Whenever I go more than three past comments without > finding the next input, I abandon the thread as unworthy of further > interest. I don't think my action is very unusual. I wonder if bottom > posters similarly quite a thread if they immediately find the reply at the > top. Interesting question. Very true. But in my opinion it is definitely not about whether to top-post or bottom-post. It is about how to quote and how to edit your message so that the next reader gets the most of it the easiest. It is definitely very frustrating to scroll three pages down to find an "OK.". But it is equally frustrating to first read "OK." and then scroll three pages down to find the original comment. It took me whopping 2 seconds to edit this post the way it looks now. I think it is more readable and informative than your reply which unnecessarily included the two previous comments (and in the wrong order...) It might also be true that most people don't change their habits when reading threads about top-/bottom-posting - at least the ones involved in the discussion (some people take this as an "honor" thing for some reason). But even if one person understands the key issue then the world becomes a better place to live in :) And I think that every single person counts! Severi S. Severi, group I do indeed agree that every single person counts having said that I feel that I have to add that it is a count of one. Also I honor everyone who spends his valuable time posting what he or she feels is relevant to post but I reserve the right to read it rearrange it as well as ignore it as soon as it reach my mailbox. I think that the day posting habits in this or any other news group becomes a key issue (at least to me) I think the world is this better place ;-) And group I really appreciate all the knowlegde I gain your from posts. I frankly I don't give a s..t if you top post bottom post left post right post as long as you post. And folks, have a nice day.... Richard > > Whenever I go more than three past comments without > > finding the next input, I abandon the thread as unworthy of further [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Severi S. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.