Off topic: What is "top posting" ??

[Chad Perrin]

It isn't the difference between web and email, it is a different
presentation philosophy. The same philosophy can be applied
to either web or email based deliver mechanisms. It also happens
that each philosophy targets a particular style of discussion.

Actually, I've been thinking about this . . . and based on my own
experience, when quoting happens in a web forum, it's "always" at the
top -- thus providing de facto bottom-posting. Posting above the quote
seems an absurd possibility at best in a web forum (and yes, I've been
involved in a LOT of web forum discussion). The danger with a
multi-interface venue like this, with regard to web forums, seems to be
the potential and likelihood for contextless posts in the forum that
might prove less than perfectly clear for those using the mailing list
or newsgroup.

 

[Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality]

I have accepted and acknowledged that this list requires bottom-posting
not only to abide by the rules, but to prevent inconveniencing the
majority of the long-time members. That is not at debate.

Of course. My apologies for logging the dead horse...

But again, the OP asked in general, and in general, I say it's a
stalemate. Neither side is 'right or wrong', 'polite or impolite',
'confusing or clear', or any pair of opposites assuming the person
posting the message knows how to get his/her point across.

If by "in general" you mean "with no context to the situation" then
yes. It's neither an issue of politeness nor righteousness. Then again,
without context, it's not a particularly interesting or useful question, so
I doubt that's how it was intended. Perhaps you're right about the "we
assume everyone is like us" syndrome since, after reading the original
post, it looks to me like they're asking "what is top posting" in the
context of usenet when, for all I know, they asked this in the mailing list
or the web forum. I don't know about those other mediums but I certainly
know the protocol for usenet and responded accordingly. Do those other
mediums have similar protocols?
I'm actually on a few web forums (though not the ruby one) and no one
top-posts despite there being no rule or protocol about it. It's just not
something people naturally do.
I have never been on a mailing list...

'Speaking for others' means you are stating how they feel, not what they
have done. Instead, I was noting the tendency for people in this thread
to assume everyone else was like them. Usenet posters assumed they were
the largest group, List posters and Web posters did the same thing.
Only 1 of those groups can be right, and I haven't seen statistics to
back any of them up. Everyone also assumes that their posting
preference is best for everyone, or at least 'least harmful' for
everyone.

I'd be surprised if usenet posters actually thought they were the
largest group. Usenet has become an esoteric medium and, thus, the usenet
population has become rather small, at least in comparison. Ask the random
man on the street if they know what e-mail or the WWW is and they will say
something along the lines of "of course." Ask them what usenet is, or what
newsgroups are, and they will give you a puzzled look...
I don't know if people assume their posting preferences are best for
everyone, either. Personally, I happen to know that my quotes don't print
well on the web forum and I lament that but I'm reticent to do anything
about it until I understand exactly why they don't work out there...

Back on the polite issue, I will agree that posting contrary to the
groups wishes is impolite. But when the group's wishes (the world's
wishes) are unknown, it is not impolite to post in a manner that does
not bother you. I will continue to only bottom-post here and top and
bottom post as I see the need to everyone else.

Well, this has become a semantic argument and I'm sure neither of us
are interested in that. Is it rude of me to take things without asking if
I don't know that it's rude?

My argument stands: Top-posting is not inherently impolite or
incorrect. It deepnds on where you are doing it.

Of course... so much so that it doesn't bear saying...

 

[darren kirby]

--nextPart1208647.iKhK9vtbgH
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

quoth the William Crawford:

Now, everyone keeps going on about 'if you want an answer, you'll have
to post in a certain way'. This is not true. I have not seen 1 post on
here that failed to get an answer because someone top-posted. I've seen
plenty of 'don't top post' replies, but the majority of them were tagged
onto an answer. If changing the format of your post doesn't change the
answer, how is the 'wrong way' ineffective?

=46WIW I am subscribed to around 20 different mailing lists. Some are usene=
t=20
gateways and some are not. The one common thread they all have, is that as=
=20
you mention, a hapless top-poster will soon be chastised and told to not do=
=20
so again. What this means to me is that the issue is beyond a stalemate, as=
=20
you put it in another message, and beyond this specific lists 'rules', but=
=20
rather, as The Way Things Should Be Done (tm) on a mailing list or usenet.

Regardless of whether or not your hypothetical top-poster may get a respons=
e,=20
it seems to me good form to use the medium in the manner that most expect y=
ou=20
to. When in Rome ans all...

Wasn't there a RFC or a usenet 'netiquette' document or something which spe=
aks=20
to this issue?

=2Dd
=2D-=20
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
=2D Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972

--nextPart1208647.iKhK9vtbgH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBE+eNOwPD5Cr/3CJgRAvkwAJ4pvMFLHmatEjJ15doh/s4/Og4gbgCgk29/
x5g7xtZUYeChGMg0YTcfH1k=
=eRfJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1208647.iKhK9vtbgH--

 

[dblack]

Hi --

quoth the William Crawford:


FWIW I am subscribed to around 20 different mailing lists. Some are usenet
gateways and some are not. The one common thread they all have, is that as
you mention, a hapless top-poster will soon be chastised and told to not do
so again. What this means to me is that the issue is beyond a stalemate, as
you put it in another message, and beyond this specific lists 'rules', but
rather, as The Way Things Should Be Done (tm) on a mailing list or usenet.

Regardless of whether or not your hypothetical top-poster may get a response,
it seems to me good form to use the medium in the manner that most expect you
to. When in Rome ans all...

Wasn't there a RFC or a usenet 'netiquette' document or something which speaks
to this issue?

I don't mean to pounce on you, Darren -- I just want to ask everyone
in this thread if they could please move it off the Ruby mailing list
(forum, newsgroup, whatever).

Thanks.


David

--
David A. Black | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

 

[Chad Perrin]

If by "in general" you mean "with no context to the situation" then
yes. It's neither an issue of politeness nor righteousness. Then again,
without context, it's not a particularly interesting or useful question, so
I doubt that's how it was intended. Perhaps you're right about the "we
assume everyone is like us" syndrome since, after reading the original
post, it looks to me like they're asking "what is top posting" in the
context of usenet when, for all I know, they asked this in the mailing list
or the web forum. I don't know about those other mediums but I certainly
know the protocol for usenet and responded accordingly. Do those other
mediums have similar protocols?
I'm actually on a few web forums (though not the ruby one) and no one
top-posts despite there being no rule or protocol about it. It's just not
something people naturally do.
I have never been on a mailing list...

It varies from list to list (having been on many). In general, in
regards to top/bottom/inline posting, lists tend to either have a "no
top-posting" rule or no rules about it at all. Those that have no rules
about it at all tend to occasionally develop complications where a
discussion will get very involved with lots of inline posting, and
someone comes along to start top-posting, completely screwing up the
flow of the conversation. On the other side of the coin, with lists
that have "no top-posting" rules, things tend to proceed smoothly until
someone new to the list (or simply stubborn) top-posts, at which point
that person may or may not be chastised overly harshly for the error.
This might produce any number of outcomes, including never posting to
the list again, a flamewar, apology and compliance, or a discussion like
this.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Wasn't there a RFC or a usenet 'netiquette' document or something which speaks
to this issue?

RFC 1855
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. [. . .] Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Jargon Wiki (evolving Jargon File)
http://ursine.ca/Top-post

1. (common) To put the newly-added portion of an email or
Usenet response before the quoted part, as opposed to the more
logical sequence of quoted portion first with original
following.

Usage notes

The problem with this practice is neatly summed up by the
following FAQ entry:

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

This term is generally used pejoratively with the implication
that the offending person is a newbie, a Microsoft addict
(Microsoft mail tools produce a similar format by default), or
simply a common-and-garden-variety idiot.

I also seem to recall a Usenet-specific "official" etiquette document
that addressed the matter, but as a non-newsgroup type myself, I don't
know where it's hiding.

 

[Chad Perrin]

I don't mean to pounce on you, Darren -- I just want to ask everyone
in this thread if they could please move it off the Ruby mailing list
(forum, newsgroup, whatever).

Er, whoops, I posted replies to other subthreads before I saw this. Mea
culpa.

 

[Jeff Pritchard]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:03:16AM +0900, darren kirby wrote:
Jargon Wiki (evolving Jargon File)
http://ursine.ca/Top-post ... or
simply a common-and-garden-variety idiot.

The real problem here is that there is no general agreement over which
is right. Forum people, like myself, are annoyed by bottom posting
(especially with a long quote), and other people are annoyed by top
posting. It's not a matter of ettiquite, since there isn't any global
agreement that one way is "good" and the other is "bad".

I'm niether rude nor a common-and-garden-variety idiot; merely a forum
user.

Me thinks this issue will not go away as long as there are multiple
avenues of accessing this cornucopia of knowledge and wisdom.

It could be solved programatically I suppose. Just create separate text
entry boxes for the quote and the new content, and then place them
"backwards" in the email that goes out to the mailing list.

Frankly I find the nuisance of this topic to be slight in comparison to
the value of the knowledge to be found here.

jp

 

[Chad Perrin]

The real problem here is that there is no general agreement over which
is right. Forum people, like myself, are annoyed by bottom posting
(especially with a long quote), and other people are annoyed by top
posting. It's not a matter of ettiquite, since there isn't any global
agreement that one way is "good" and the other is "bad".

I think pretty much everybody is annoyed by overly long quotes, no
matter where they are.

David Black asked us to take this off-list if we're going to continue
discussing it. Considering how off-topic it has gotten, following the
general agreement that on this list at least we should conform to its
guidelines (which means no top-posting), perhaps we should take his
request to heart.

There is one part that is slightly on-topic, though, even if it seems
only to beg to be put to rest:

It could be solved programatically I suppose. Just create separate text
entry boxes for the quote and the new content, and then place them
"backwards" in the email that goes out to the mailing list.

I'm confused. What do you mean by "backwards"?

If there's something to be solved programmatically, I'm all for it. On
the other hand, I don't see how that's the case if the mailing list and
newsgroup interfaces "prefer" avoiding top-posting, and a forum would
just look absurd with quotes under original text.

 

[Rick DeNatale]

One of the reasons I prefer GMail for reading Mailing Lists is because
it groups threads and hides quoted text (but allows you to show them
if necessary). It's very clean.

I love gmail for the same reasons, but it's not perfect.

It actually encourages top-posting for at least two reasons that I can think of.

1) When you reply to a message it puts your insertion point at the
beginning of the first of blank lines it puts, before the quoted
message to which you are replying.

2) It only really likes to hide quoted text at the bottom of a message.

So when I reply I almost invariably start by deleting those two blank
lines, then any quoted stuff I want to strip, before adding my
comments, and them I just live with the way quote hiding works.