Top-Posting Vs. Bottom-Posting

[Neil]

I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't top-post
my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier for the reader to
see the reply, rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post in, I thought I'd ask
its members, especially Sir Larry, what the preferred method is (if any).
Here are the links the fellow provided me:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html >
<http://www.netmeister. org/news/learn2quote.htm l>
<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/google/ (taming google)
<http://members.fortune city.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)

Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

Thanks,

Neil

[Larry Linson]

"Neil" <no****@nospam. netwrote in

I received a message in another newsgroup saying
that I shouldn't top-post my replies. I always top-post,
because I feel it's easier for the reader to see the reply,
rather than having to go to the bottom of the previous
message. But, since this is the main newsgroup I post
in, I thought I'd ask its members, especially Sir Larry,
what the preferred method is (if any).

I top-post more often than I should, usually when I am in a hurry... at the
risk of irritating many, that can let me answer a few more questions, and
again, all too often, I don't trim when I top-post.

I also bottom-post, almost always with trimming.

And, as well, I sometimes trim, and post the answer or response immediately
after the appropriate material quoted from the original.

And, if my response is "complete in itself", and doesn't need any "context",
I some times post with no quotes at all.

So, I am not a good one to use as an example or as an authority on the
subject... none of the approaches really irritates me, but I agree with
those who object to responses without any trimming. I no longer "admonish"
those who don't, but unless the thread is very, very interesting to me, I
may ignore threads with no trimming when the chain of posts lengthens.

And I have been "admonished " for top-posting (sometimes right here), and the
other methods (here or elsewhere)... as I don't really have a vested
interest in which approach, I no longer really get involved in detailed, or
heated, discussions on the issue. I just chalk it up to a matter of personal
preference.

If you want to "do as I say, not as I do", don't top-post, do trim, and use
one of the last three approaches I described, as you think is appropriate.
BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET "rule" on the
issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are points to be made for
and against each approach.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Neil]

For form I go over to alt.pictures.sv elte-american-women; unfortunately
there has been nothing posted there for more than nine years.

But it used to be great for bottom-posting.

... top too.

That was pretty funny! ;-)

[Neil]

"Arch" <se*****@spam.n etwrote in message
news:u4******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:49:16 -0600, "Rick Brandt"
<ri*********@ho tmail.comwrote:

[trim]

>>Ultimately the conventions of the group are what should be followed (if it
has
any).

I personally prefer top posted messages.

THANK YOU! (I knew I wasn't alone! ;-) )

I find it quicker and easier
to read replies at the top. But I believe that Rick is correct about
following conventions. Top posting is considered objectionable in a
vast majority of newsgroups.

Yes, it does seem that way. Thanks,

Neil

[Neil]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@ho tmail.comwrote in message
news:iV******** ******@nlpi061. nbdc.sbc.com...

Neil wrote:

>I received a message in another newsgroup saying that I shouldn't
top-post my replies. I always top-post, because I feel it's easier
for the reader to see the reply,

Sure, but what about all the readers for whom it is not a reply? If I ask
a question and you top post an answer that's great for me. For someone
who comes along later and sees only your post they have to read it
backwards.

I guess I just go by my own reading methods. When I come to a thread I'm not
familiar with, I just read the original posts. I NEVER rely on getting back
information from quoted material.

Now, granted, with some long threads, you can't do that. But if a thread's
that long, it's likely just the subthread you're interested in anyway. So I
go to the beginning of that.

So I just go post-by-post through the thread, which is usually just a few
posts, maybe 10 at the most, and I look for each answer. If it's at the top,
that's convenient.

>
One thing that is certainly true is that top posting is easier for the
poster. Saying that it is easier for readers is at worst disengenuous and
simply incorrect at best.

Wow. Harsh. :-) Let me see... am I disengenuous or just incorrect...
disengenuous or incorrect... I'll take disengenuous! No, incorrect! No,
disengenuous! :-)

I do say it's easier for readers, for those who read like me, per my above
note. And I don't believe I'm either disengenuous or incorrect. Now, if
there's no one else in the world who reads threads like I do, then I'd be
incorrect. But I don't think that's the case. We post-readers may be in the
minority; but I don't think I'm entirely alone.

As for your statement that it's easier for the poster, I disagree. I find it
easier to post at the end, when I'm done reading. It's actually extra work
for me to return to the top and place my comment. So I find that statement
to be incorrect at best, but disengenuous at worst. ;-)

>
(newsnet posts are not merely a conversation between two people)

Good to know! :-)

>Do you guys agree or disagree or don't care?

The biggest problem with top posters is that they don't trim down to the
specific quotes they are replying to. Leaving a huge quoted thread in a
post with a few comments at the very bottom is just as bad or worse than
top posting.

Many assume that how the thread looks in their interface is how it looks
to everyone else and don't consider how the thread looks days or weeks
later. You can't assume that the whole thread is being read in real time
with memory of previous posts helping out.

To me it is a bigger deal in discussion threads. If an initial post is a
question that can be definitively answered in a single response then
having that response be top posted is not such a big deal. Longer threads
get to be a mess real quick with top posting though. Of course one never
knows when a simple question/answer thread is going to turn into a long
discussion thread.

Ultimately the conventions of the group are what should be followed (if it
has any).

Well, honestly, bottom posting is easier for me, as I stated above. I just
thought it was rude to make the person wade through the entire text to get
to the bottom, so I took the extra step to go back to the top and post, so
it would be more convenient for the reader. It seems, though, that most
people here either don't care or favor bottom posting. I still need to read
the rest of the replies, but it seems that that's the favored approach.

Thanks,

Neil

>
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Neil]

So, I am not a good one to use as an example or as an authority on the
subject...

Yes. I just felt that, since you're usually big on forum protocol, you might
have the "official" answer. :-)

BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET "rule" on
the issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are points to be made
for and against each approach.

That's good to know. For me personally, it was just a matter of courtesy, as
I felt the reader would prefer a top-posted response (despite allegations of
possible disengenuousnes s on my part :-) ). So, since people seem to favor
bottom-posting, if anything, that's fine. That just seemed discourteous to
me.

Thanks,

Neil

[Chuck Grimsby]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:42:12 -0600, "Neil" <no****@nospam. netwrote:

>BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET "rule" on
the issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are points to be made
for and against each approach.

>That's good to know. For me personally, it was just a matter of courtesy, as
I felt the reader would prefer a top-posted response (despite allegations of
possible disengenuousnes s on my part :-) ). So, since people seem to favor
bottom-posting, if anything, that's fine. That just seemed discourteous to
me.

Personally, I've always preferred top-posting. It puts the most
receint information at the top of the post, where it's presented to
the reader without forcing them to scroll down through the whole
thread.

But for clarity's sake, I also tend to follow whatever the heck method
is being used in the thread. Personally, I find if *very* annoying
(and confusing) to try to figure out the thread by people who insist
on following whatever the heck their own personal preference is for
top or bottom posting, or more likely, whatever the heck the
newsreader's preference is!

In other words, people who bottom post to a thread that the rest of
the people top post to are just down right rude.

The reverse is also quite true. People who top post to a thread
that's bottom posted are just down right rude.

It doesn't matter what *your* preference is, or that of your
newsreader. Life is confusing enough without mixed threads. Usenet,
doubly so.
Please Post Any Replies To This Message Back To the Newsgroup.
There are "Lurkers" around who can benefit by our exchange!

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:nDr1j.1317 $ng.1068@trnddc 08:

BTW, there has always been a lot of discussion, but no USENET
"rule" on the issue -- it's a matter of preference, and there are
points to be made for and against each approach.

Actually, when I started posting in Usenet (1994), there was no such
thing as top posting -- it was all bottom posting. But shortly
thereafter, Windows Usenet clients started being introduced, and
somebody somewhere along the line thought top posting was
preferable, and that's when I started seeing it.

Personally, I blame it on Microsoft.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

Chuck Grimsby <c.*******@worl dnet.att.net.in validwrote in
news:kt******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

In other words, people who bottom post to a thread that the rest
of the people top post to are just down right rude.

I disagree. I *always* bottom post, but when doing it in a
top-posted thread, I convert whatever I'm quoting to bottom-posted
format.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Neil" <no****@nospam. netwrote in
news:vT******** ******@nlpi068. nbdc.sbc.com:

I do say it's easier for readers, for those who read like me, per
my above note.

It's only easier when people aren't trimming quotes. If quotes are
trimmed, top posting looks very stupid.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Neil" <no****@nospam. netwrote in
news:vT******** ******@nlpi068. nbdc.sbc.com:

As for your statement that it's easier for the poster, I disagree.
I find it easier to post at the end, when I'm done reading. It's
actually extra work for me to return to the top and place my
comment. So I find that statement to be incorrect at best, but
disengenuous at worst. ;-)

That all depends on your news reader. If it defaults to top posting,
it will be easier to top post. If you prefer to top post, you should
check your news reader's defaults and change them to match your
preferences.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/