On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:> On 07/23/2015 09:34 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> On Thu, July 23, 2015 8:43 am, Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- > <snip> >>>>> Sorry for the top post, Outlook defaults strike again..... >>>> >>>> Outlook forces you to write above ? :-) > <snip> >>> >>> Perhaps I should say instead that it "strongly encourages" top posting, >>> and all our internal emails follow that convention. >>> >>> It's habit-forming.... :-) >> >> Well, my habit for regular e-mail exchange is "top posting" thus the >> person reads my message thus is right to the point why this particular >> message message was sent in a first place... But when mail lists are >> concerned, I do an opposite, that is I follow mail lists conventions. I >> never thought about rationale behind them, I'm just following them. I >> believe, if some day someone gives reasons why top posting is bad in >> case >> of mail lists it will really be great. The only reason I can come up >> with >> myself would be: whoever reads message received through mail lists >> usually >> has no idea about previous exchange in this thread, thus needs all >> exchange in chronological order. Which I'm not certain is a good reason, >> so those who know and insists strongly about "no top posting" are >> encouraged to give others the reasons behind that. Again, I'm not "top >> posting" on the lists. However, _this_ ("top posting") is my regular way >> in private exchange (and it has good reasons behind it). > > The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the > reply .. but for IN-LINE posting. > > In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you only > need some of and not all of the other posts, something that happens > frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read that type of > collaborated message in chronological order. > > I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post from > bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from bottom to > top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If you take 4 emails of > 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it is 75% down to 100% (original > mail)... then up to 50% and read down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% > and read down to 50%, then up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if > someone made you read blog posts that way, or books or newspaper articles? >OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we are collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention is better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as far as mail lists are concerned). Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Am 23.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb "Valeri Galtsev" <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>:> > On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> >> The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the >> reply .. but for IN-LINE posting. >> >> In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you only >> need some of and not all of the other posts, something that happens >> frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read that type of >> collaborated message in chronological order. >> >> I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post from >> bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from bottom to >> top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If you take 4 emails of >> 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it is 75% down to 100% (original >> mail)... then up to 50% and read down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% >> and read down to 50%, then up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if >> someone made you read blog posts that way, or books or newspaper articles? >> > > OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we are > collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less > communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention is > better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as far as mail > lists are concerned).I consider email as an asynchronous communication, therefore "book style convention" is recommended. -- LF
Leon Fauster wrote:> Am 23.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb "Valeri Galtsev" > <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>: >> >> On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> >>> The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the >>> reply .. but for IN-LINE posting. >>> >>> In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you >>> only need some of and not all of the other posts, something that >>> happens frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read >>> that type of collaborated message in chronological order. >>> >>> I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post >>> from bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from >>> bottom to top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If >>> you take 4 emails of 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it >>> is 75% down to 100% (original mail)... then up to 50% and read >>> down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% and read down to 50%, then >>> up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if someone made you read blog >>> posts that way, or books or newspaper articles? >> >> OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we >> are collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less >> communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention >> is better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as >> far as mail lists are concerned). > > I consider email as an asynchronous communication, > therefore "book style convention" is recommended.Yup. We're writing electronic *mail*, not text messages (here, you've got 140 char, tell me everything you know....), and you don't have a two-line pager screen.... I see it as a slo-mo group conversation, and top-posting is like the person who suddenly utters a nonsequitur, louder than everyone else is speaking.... mark