Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for top-quoting? Thx.
+1 On Oct 15, 2007, at 2:38 PM, s.ross wrote:> Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list > use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous > thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the > reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for > top-quoting? > > Thx. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users-1
On 10/15/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:> +1 > > On Oct 15, 2007, at 2:38 PM, s.ross wrote: > > > Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list > > use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous > > thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the > > reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for > > top-quoting? > > > > Thx. > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > -1 > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting:A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Good point. Reminds me of this classic: A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? On 10/15/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote:> Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list > use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous > thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the > reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for > top-quoting? > > Thx. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On 10/15/2007 5:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:> Good point. Reminds me of this classic: > > A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > > On 10/15/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote: >> Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list >> use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous >> thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the >> reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for >> top-quoting?Yeah.. this is an age-old Internet debate, of course, but I think the problem is that (a) we''re all top-quoting but (b) we''re never trimming, not even the mailing-list footer. If you''re gonna top-quote/bottom-post - and that is my personal favorite for exactly the reasons demonstrated in the A&Q above - you gotta trim. Also, you should never mix styles in a single thread, the way this post does.. :) Part of the problem may be that the rspec footer doesn''t follow .sig rules; instead of the long line, it should use dash-dash-space. In my incredibly scientific test, Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 on Windows will automagically trim .sigs that follow the rule, and therefore, so will all clients anywhere. Jay -- This is a sig that will get trimmed, by Thunderbird, at least. Drink Coca-Cola!
On 10/15/07, Jay Levitt <lists-rspec at shopwatch.org> wrote:> On 10/15/2007 5:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote: > > Good point. Reminds me of this classic: > > > > A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion. > > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > A: Top-posting. > > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > > > > On 10/15/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list > >> use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous > >> thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the > >> reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for > >> top-quoting? > > Yeah.. this is an age-old Internet debate, of course, but I think the > problem is that (a) we''re all top-quoting but (b) we''re never trimming, > not even the mailing-list footer. > > If you''re gonna top-quote/bottom-post - and that is my personal favorite > for exactly the reasons demonstrated in the A&Q above - you gotta trim. > > Also, you should never mix styles in a single thread, the way this post > does.. :) > > Part of the problem may be that the rspec footer doesn''t follow .sig > rules; instead of the long line, it should use dash-dash-space. In my > incredibly scientific test, Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 on Windows will > automagically trim .sigs that follow the rule, and therefore, so will > all clients anywhere.I think one problem is that GMail encourages you to top-post. Not everybody uses gmail of course, but a lot of devs do. I''m probably guilty of not trimming enough because GMail folds that stuff out of the way for me. Personally, I''d prefer it if people don''t top-post but I don''t care too too much. I just stick with whatever approach has already been adopted in a thread. That''s probably the pacifist in me. Pat
Just wondering ....
On 10/16/07, Pat Maddox
<pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I''d prefer it
if
people don''t top-post but I don''t care
sideposting > too too much. I just stick with
whatever approach has already been
> adopted in a thread.
That''s
probably the pacifist in me.
>
Sorry .. could not resist trying :-)
Wait, actually it looks like OP is asking about top-quoting, and you''re responding about top-posting. Top-posting is what I''m doing right now, and apparently is what OP would prefer? I''m so confused now (especially after Shane''s sideposting prank!). On 10/15/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:> Good point. Reminds me of this classic: > > A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > > On 10/15/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sort of off-topic and don''t mean to complain, but many on this list > > use top quoting. That works ok if you don''t quote the whole previous > > thread. However, I''m finding that scrolling forever to locate the > > reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What''s the rationale for > > top-quoting? > > > > Thx. > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
Not to beat an already beaten horse, but... I see email more as a dynamic information flow than a static page, especially active conversations like this, so I like to see the current response at the top, immediately accessible, and visible in my preview pane. Or, maybe I should look for a mail reader that automatically scrolls to the bottom of the message when you click on it :)
On 10/15/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:> I think one problem is that GMail encourages you to top-post. Not > everybody uses gmail of course, but a lot of devs do. I''m probably > guilty of not trimming enough because GMail folds that stuff out of > the way for me. >I guess is not quite right. Top-posting is laziness, not mail software issue ;-) I use Gmail and take the time to find where I should slice the previous email and inject my reply there, to keep everyone reading in context.> Personally, I''d prefer it if people don''t top-post but I don''t care > too too much. I just stick with whatever approach has already been > adopted in a thread. That''s probably the pacifist in me. >With 5+ ppl involved on a thread, top-posting get messy, and sometimes is impossible to follow who replied to what part of the previous or what email before that... Take some time look for it, but anyone could do it -- I personally dislike this method :-P -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile. Vince Lombardi
El 16/10/2007, a las 0:58, Jay Levitt <lists-rspec at shopwatch.org> escribi?:> Yeah.. this is an age-old Internet debate, of course, but I think the > problem is that (a) we''re all top-quoting but (b) we''re never > trimming, > not even the mailing-list footer. > > If you''re gonna top-quote/bottom-post - and that is my personal > favorite > for exactly the reasons demonstrated in the A&Q above - you gotta > trim.Some prefer top-posting, others bottom-posting (I fall into this latter group), but I think that whichever way people decide to go, they would do us all a great service by trimming down the quoted section to only the relevant parts. This is especially true in cases where the reply might be two or three lines long, and the untrimmed quoted message stretches on for screenfuls. Our mail clients (and web interfaces) already provide us with threaded interfaces for going back and looking at the older parts of a conversation; it''s not necessary to have the entire history of the conversation embedded in every single reply. Cheers, Wincent
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:> Some prefer top-posting, others bottom-posting (I fall into this > latter group), but I think that whichever way people decide to go, > they would do us all a great service by trimming down the quoted > section to only the relevant parts.Totally agree. I recognize that I''ve not been doing this but I''ll try to do so from now on. Cheers, David
> This is especially true in cases where the reply might be two or > three lines long, and the untrimmed quoted message stretches on for > screenfuls.I totally agree, in fact I let most of these conversations just pass by because it''s too much work to sift through all the nested quotes. I''d definitely participate more if things were trimmed sensibly. Nate
On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Nathan Sutton wrote:>> This is especially true in cases where the reply might be two or >> three lines long, and the untrimmed quoted message stretches on for >> screenfuls. > > I totally agree, in fact I let most of these conversations just pass > by because it''s too much work to sift through all the nested quotes. > I''d definitely participate more if things were trimmed sensibly. > > Nate > _______________________________________________Bingo! And (BTW) I''m the OP. I don''t care whether you top-post or bottom-post. I try to pare the quoted email to the relevant, assuming that people either have read or have access to more context, should they need it. What got me started was the long thread on "Step matchers" (and I don''t mean to single anyone out -- it just happens to be a thread I gave up on rather recently because of this). I just thought I would raise the issue and see if anyone had any thoughts about it. From what I read it''s: - Bottom post or interleave - Trim quoted mail to provide quoted context but not extraneous - Keep posts DRY :) Yes? Steve