Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

panshizhu

Hi vimmers:

Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is prefered
on Vim Mainling List.

As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e. replied
message shows before the original message), and I personally feel
top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.

Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?
--
Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Mark Woodward-4
Hi,

TOP POST:---------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:00 +0800, [hidden email] wrote:
> Hi vimmers:

I'll try and explain

> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is prefered
> on Vim Mainling List.

Most do, but probably shouldn't

> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e. replied
> message shows before the original message), and I personally feel
> top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.

Easier to read for most, easier to insert replies. Probably historical
reasons.

> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?
> --
> Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606


BOTTOM
POST:--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:00 +0800, [hidden email] wrote:
> Hi vimmers:
>
> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is prefered
> on Vim Mainling List.

I'll try to explain

> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e. replied
> message shows before the original message), and I personally feel
> top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.

Most do, but probably shouldn't

> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?

Easier to read for most, easier to insert replies. Probably historical
reasons.

> --
> Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606

Which of the above is easier to read?
Which would be easier to read after several exchanges? ie you reply to
points I made, I reply back, you reply.....


cheers,

--
Mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Steve Hall-3
In reply to this post by panshizhu
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:00 +0800, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is
> prefered on Vim Mainling List.
>
> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e.
> replied message shows before the original message), and I personally
> feel top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.
>
> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?

Two different explanations:

1. http://www.american.edu/cas/econ/htmlmail.htm

  (See under "Interlineated responses")

2. (One of my favorite signatures)

:: A: Because it's not the order people normally read.
:: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
:: A: Top-posting.
:: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You could say that top posting is easier to write, but bottom posting
is easier to read. The extra effort of one poster saves all the
readers the same amount of effort. For a group, bottom posting keeps
everyone on track. And if done well, individual posts can stand alone
in an archive without a peruser having to go paging through a whole
thread.


--
Steve Hall  [ digitect dancingpaper com ]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Dave Land
In reply to this post by panshizhu
On May 28, 2007, at 8:00 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is  
> prefered
> on Vim Mainling List.
>
> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e.  
> replied
> message shows before the original message), and I personally feel
> top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.
>
> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?

I have seen it explained like this:

     A: Because it disrupts the flow of the conversation.
     Q: Why is top-posting deprecated?

I don't agree 100% with that pithy example, because quite a few
forums, blogs and bulletin boards default to most-recent-message
first, which is essentially top-posting. In fact, I work at a company
that develops and runs online communities, and many end-users (and
some of the clients who hire us to do their communities choose to list
threads that way.

As for me, I adapt to whatever is the preference of the community. In
some, top-posting is a quick trip to a flame-war. In others, it is
the norm.

Dave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Dave Land
In reply to this post by Mark Woodward-4
Folks,

In the spirit contrarianism, I'm going to top-post now.

Actually, both parts of Mark's post below were of a _third_ variety:
"interlinear comments". On many communities, this is the preferred
method, especially if the posts tend to be longish and contain many
separate points that need to be answered.

Thus, you have three choices:

   - Top-post, the default for many mail clients, as PanShiZhu notes
     Best known for inciting flame wars in some communities.

   - Bottom-post, which some say preserves the flow of conversation,
     and which happens to be the practice of this community.
     A good way to avoid flame wars on some communities.

   - Interlinear comments, which allows complex posts to be answered
     point-by-point.
     The preferred tool of flame-warriors in many communities,
     because they can show what an ass their victim is with
     pin-point precision.

Dave

On May 28, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:

> Hi,
>
> TOP  
> POST:---------------------------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:00 +0800, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Hi vimmers:
>
> I'll try and explain
>
>> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is  
>> prefered
>> on Vim Mainling List.
>
> Most do, but probably shouldn't
>
>> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting  
>> (i.e. replied
>> message shows before the original message), and I personally feel
>> top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.
>
> Easier to read for most, easier to insert replies. Probably historical
> reasons.
>
>> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?
>> --
>> Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606
>
>
> BOTTOM
> POST:-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:00 +0800, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Hi vimmers:
>>
>> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is  
>> prefered
>> on Vim Mainling List.
>
> I'll try to explain
>
>> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting  
>> (i.e. replied
>> message shows before the original message), and I personally feel
>> top-posting much much easier to read than bottom-posting.
>
> Most do, but probably shouldn't
>
>> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?
>
> Easier to read for most, easier to insert replies. Probably historical
> reasons.
>
>> --
>> Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606
>
> Which of the above is easier to read?
> Which would be easier to read after several exchanges? ie you reply to
> points I made, I reply back, you reply.....
>
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> Mark
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Christian J. Robinson
In reply to this post by panshizhu
On Tue, 29 May 2007, [hidden email] wrote:

> Slightly Off-topic, but I'm still wondering why bottom-posting is
> prefered on Vim Mainling List.

It's usually preferred more than top-posting.  Even on the blind Linux
users' mailing list they prefer that you don't "top-post".

> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e.
> replied message shows before the original message),

In my experience it's more that it can be frustrating to try to
automatically position the cursor without the software "guessing"
wrong, and it's not helpful for context replying (see below).  In
other words, it's better to let the user move the cursor where
he wants it.

Those email clients that automatically insert your signature above the
quoted message are generally considered to be broken--regardless of
whether you prefer to top-post--but that's another issue involving its
own discussion.[1]

> and I personally feel top-posting much much easier to read than
> bottom-posting.

This is a matter of opinion and great debate.  I've seen the arguments
get as heated as the infamous "editor wars".

> Is there any point (or historic reason) choosing bottom-post ?

Email etiquette is that you trim the message you're responding to down
to the minimum while retaining context, and intersperse your replies
to the relevant sections of the original message (as I've done here).
Top-posting makes it impossible to do this and makes it unclear
exactly what you're responding to, especially if you don't trim--a bad
habit I see far more often among top-posters.

Occasionally I see a tagline that illustrates it very well:

 A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
 Q. Why is top posting bad?

Also, I'd like to point out that just because something is done for
"historical reasons" doesn't make it bad, outmoded, invalid, or
whatever.  After all, if that were true vi/Vim wouldn't be used any
more.[2]  There are usually good reasons why things become established
conventions, and rarely do those reasons just go away.

- Christian


[1] In summary, you shouldn't include the signature of the original
    message in your reply and your signature should always appear at
    the bottom of your message--preferably after a signature delimiter
    line ("-- " (dash, dash, space)).  The sig-delimiter allows email
    clients to automatically strip out the signature when you select
    reply.
[2] Occasionally you'll see people contend that vi is a "legacy"
    editor and for that reason shouldn't be used any more, and by
    extension Vim is "flawed" because it's based on a "legacy" editor.

--
            In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.
Christian J. Robinson <[hidden email]> http://infynity.spodzone.com/
   PGP keys: 0x893B0EAF / 0xFB698360   http://infynity.spodzone.com/pgp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

panshizhu
In reply to this post by Steve Hall-3
Steve Hall <[hidden email]> 写于 2007-05-29 12:19:43:
> You could say that top posting is easier to write, but bottom posting
> is easier to read. The extra effort of one poster saves all the
> readers the same amount of effort. For a group, bottom posting keeps
> everyone on track. And if done well, individual posts can stand alone
> in an archive without a peruser having to go paging through a whole
> thread.
>

Hi,

It seems that top-posters and bottom-posters belongs to different party and
no one can convice another.

An explaination why top-post is easier to read:
When I am viewing an e-mail, the reply is the main part of the message and
I usually quite aware of what the original post is. So I should be able to
see the reply when I open the message.

If the message is bottom post, I will have to scroll down and down to find
where the author really start to say something. If the reply starts on line
1000 while the messages ends on line 2000 it will be quite difficult to
know line 1000 is the start of reply and I should read from that line.

While for the top-post, I know the first line is the start of reply and I
can read the reply without any difficulty. In an active forum, threads
grown long quickly, with top-post, we focus on what the message saids and
waste no time.

Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem is
that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim all
"original messages" before I could read the actual reply.

Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
rule".
--
Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Troy Piggins-2
* [hidden email] is quoted & my replies are inline below :

> Steve Hall <[hidden email]> 写于 2007-05-29 12:19:43:
> > You could say that top posting is easier to write, but bottom posting
> > is easier to read. The extra effort of one poster saves all the
> > readers the same amount of effort. For a group, bottom posting keeps
> > everyone on track. And if done well, individual posts can stand alone
> > in an archive without a peruser having to go paging through a whole
> > thread.
>
> It seems that top-posters and bottom-posters belongs to different party and
> no one can convice another.
>
> An explaination why top-post is easier to read:
> When I am viewing an e-mail, the reply is the main part of the message and
> I usually quite aware of what the original post is. So I should be able to
> see the reply when I open the message.

Notice how I have set up my reply attribution above.  It lets people know to
look down for my comments.

> If the message is bottom post, I will have to scroll down and down to find
> where the author really start to say something. If the reply starts on line
> 1000 while the messages ends on line 2000 it will be quite difficult to
> know line 1000 is the start of reply and I should read from that line.

When replying to very long messages it's best to trim the quoted message,
leaving only relevant parts to your reply and noting where you have trimmed
with something like <snip>, to avoid that problem

> While for the top-post, I know the first line is the start of reply and I
> can read the reply without any difficulty. In an active forum, threads
> grown long quickly, with top-post, we focus on what the message saids and
> waste no time.

That's fine for one to one emails where you can usually remember what the
conversation is with that person, but on lists where there are hundreds of
messages it is difficult to remember details you need to keep context.  In
particular it's better for people searching list archives for similar problems
years later - it minimises the time to find answers.

> Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem is
> that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim all
> "original messages" before I could read the actual reply.

Again, if people trimmed as they went that shouldn't be a problem.

> Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
> rule".

:)

--
Troy Piggins | http://piggo.com/~troy         __   ___          
RLU#415538                                    \ \ / (_)_ __     ,-O   (o-    O
                                               \ V /| | '  \   O   )  //\     O
Vim 7.0.22                                      \_/ |_|_|_|_|   `-O   V_/_  OOO
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Micah Cowan-2
In reply to this post by panshizhu
[hidden email] wrote:

> Steve Hall <[hidden email]> 写于 2007-05-29 12:19:43:
>> You could say that top posting is easier to write, but bottom posting
>> is easier to read. The extra effort of one poster saves all the
>> readers the same amount of effort. For a group, bottom posting keeps
>> everyone on track. And if done well, individual posts can stand alone
>> in an archive without a peruser having to go paging through a whole
>> thread.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> It seems that top-posters and bottom-posters belongs to different party and
> no one can convice another.
>
> An explaination why top-post is easier to read:
> When I am viewing an e-mail, the reply is the main part of the message and
> I usually quite aware of what the original post is. So I should be able to
> see the reply when I open the message.
>
> If the message is bottom post, I will have to scroll down and down to find
> where the author really start to say something. If the reply starts on line
> 1000 while the messages ends on line 2000 it will be quite difficult to
> know line 1000 is the start of reply and I should read from that line.
Such an event is usually an indication that far too much context has
been provided (the "me-too" scenario, typically).

> While for the top-post, I know the first line is the start of reply and I
> can read the reply without any difficulty. In an active forum, threads
> grown long quickly, with top-post, we focus on what the message saids and
> waste no time.
>
> Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem is
> that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim all
> "original messages" before I could read the actual reply.
>
> Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
> rule".
You aren't considering the case where people are posting item-by-item
responses (as I have just done). This is absolutely impossible to read
when top-posting. This is why bottom-posting is preferred in pretty much
any forum where item-wise responses are likely. You can argue about
whether a top-post or bottom-post looks better for non-item-wise posts,
but the moment someone tries to address individual points separately
(which is often a good idea), there is no longer any room for
questioning: bottom-posting is the clear winner. I thought that Mark
Woodward demonstrated this rather well.

Even if you're not posting an item-by-item response, top-posting
effectively prevents anyone from writing an item-wise response to your
response, since mixed top-and-bottom posting is a clear loser.

--
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...
http://micah.cowan.name/


signature.asc (260 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Matthew Winn-3
In reply to this post by panshizhu
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:07 +0800, [hidden email] wrote:

> An explaination why top-post is easier to read:
> When I am viewing an e-mail, the reply is the main part of the message and
> I usually quite aware of what the original post is. So I should be able to
> see the reply when I open the message.

That sounds reasonable, until you think about it more realistically.

A long-running thread may contain hundreds of messages spread over a
period of several days, or even weeks. People are dipping in and out
of the thread at all times, and they're reading other threads as well.
It's just not possible to be aware of what the original post is in
most cases. For example, your message is just one of 170 messages I
have waiting to be read right now. When I read your message I may be
able to work out what it's referring to after a while, but how am I
supposed to know this right from the start with no context to go on?
Remember, when you write your message the point you're replying to is
fresh in your mind. When someone else reads your message it may be a
couple of days since they read the one you responded to, so how are
they going to know what you meant?

> If the message is bottom post, I will have to scroll down and down to find
> where the author really start to say something. If the reply starts on line
> 1000 while the messages ends on line 2000 it will be quite difficult to
> know line 1000 is the start of reply and I should read from that line.

The problem there isn't the style of posting but the lack of trimming.
Whether you top-post or bottom-post you should ALWAYS trim out any
quoted material you don't need. Although many experienced Internet
users complain about top-posting, often the real issue that bothers
them is that top-posters almost invariably leave hundreds or thousands
of unnecessary text dangling off the bottom of their message. The same
attitude that says "the cursor's at the top so that's where I'll type"
also says "the entire message is quoted so that's how it'll stay".

> While for the top-post, I know the first line is the start of reply and I
> can read the reply without any difficulty. In an active forum, threads
> grown long quickly, with top-post, we focus on what the message saids and
> waste no time.

That depends how you read your messages.

A little-known but extremely useful feature of many mail and news
clients is single key read. It's a feature that allows you to use a
single key both for paging down through each message and for moving
on to the next message. It makes reading large numbers of messages a
breeze and is also easy on the muscles. Top-posting completely ruins
this, because you end up having to page down through the unnecessary
trailing content left by the top-posters.

It's possible to work around this by using different keystrokes for
moving between messages and for scrolling messages, but that takes
more effort and, if you have to read thousands of messages a day, puts
a considerable and significant extra strain on the hands and wrists.
(It really does make a difference. I used to find my hands ached after
reading mail and news for an hour. Then I discovered single key read.
Now I just leave my hand resting lightly on the space bar and a slight
movement of my fingers is all I need to do the work.)

In general, top-posters are often those who haven't examined all the
features of their software to find out how to use it most efficiently.
They just find something that does the job and stick with it. On a
web-based board I use another user had constantly complained that the
new board software was much slower to use than the old software, but
that was because she was trying to use it in the first way that came
to her. When I pointed out the "view new messages" feature that she'd
missed she was instantly converted to the new software. She'd disliked
the new software solely because she was using it inefficiently, and
that's how most top-posters are: they prefer it not because it's best,
but because it works best with the way they read mail.

To use the inevitable car analogy, it's like someone learning to drive
by trial and error and assuming that the turn indicators are a great
way to signal "hello" to his friends, and then getting all defensive
when told that's not what they're for and everyone would get on more
efficiently if he'd use them properly.

> Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem is
> that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim all
> "original messages" before I could read the actual reply.

If you have to skim a lot of text then you should be complaining about
people not trimming. If someone bottom-posts, leaves pages of lines
before their own message, and those lines are not necessary in order
to establish the context of their reply, then they're not trimming
properly. The purpose of quoting is to establish context for the new
message, not to provide a complete archive of the thread. (If someone
_wants_ to read the entire thread they can look at other messages or
consult an archive. Quoting is used merely so they don't _need_ to
check other messages in order to understand the current one.)

On one usenet group I use there are two posters who regularly get into
childish and pointless fights. Both of them bottom-post and neither
one trims their quotes, which means that in the end both are posting
500-line messages with one or two lines of insults at the end. Most
regulars find their squabbles easy to recognise so nobody reads the
messages anyway, but it does serve as an illustration that everyone
should think carefully about what they quote, not simply leave the
entire quoted message there because that's how the software sets up
the response.

> Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
> rule".

That's the wrong attitude. This is the Internet. You're supposed to
insist that you know better than everyone else even if they've been
using the Internet for decades, and you have loads of lurkers who
support your point of view but they're all too scared of The Clique
to speak up, and when you're in charge you'll Show Us All.

That's the Internet Way. People aren't supposed to be reasonable.
(Dammit, there's not even a single "!!!1!!1!" or a "LOLOL" in this
thread. What's wrong with you people? Have I fallen into an alternate
universe where there's intelligence on the Internet?)

--
Matthew Winn
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

panshizhu
Matthew Winn <[hidden email]> 写于 2007-05-29 16:10:57:
> > Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem
is
> > that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim
all
> > "original messages" before I could read the actual reply.
>
> If you have to skim a lot of text then you should be complaining about
> people not trimming. If someone bottom-posts, leaves pages of lines
> before their own message, and those lines are not necessary in order
> to establish the context of their reply, then they're not trimming
> properly.

This get to my point: is it possible to ask EVERYONE to trim correctly?
unlikely.

See, though I always do trim, I still suffered from those who do not trim
and use bottom-posting. If those who do not trim use top-posting, I'll not
suffered from the poor trim, and I can do trim myself when I reply the
message.


> > Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
> > rule".
> That's the wrong attitude. This is the Internet. You're supposed to
> insist that you know better than everyone else even if they've been
> using the Internet for decades, and you have loads of lurkers who
> support your point of view but they're all too scared of The Clique
> to speak up, and when you're in charge you'll Show Us All.

I feel you're talking friendly and for good. But due to my poor English
proficiency I don't seem to catch what you said.  The "community rule" in
vim ML is to do bottom-posting, so I stick to the rule even if I don't
accept it. What do you meant by "wrong attitude"? Do you mean I should
insist my top-posting when I think it is right?

PS: This Off-topic thread has been talked long and I'm sorry to bring
excess load to vim mailing list, please mail directly to me if any vimmer
friends wants to talk futher about it. Thanks.

--
Sincerely, Pan, Shi Zhu. ext: 2606
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Michael Henry-5
[hidden email] wrote:
> Matthew Winn <[hidden email]> 写于 2007-05-29 16:10:57:
>> That's the wrong attitude. This is the Internet. You're supposed to
>> insist that you know better than everyone else even if they've been
>> using the Internet for decades, and you have loads of lurkers who
>> support your point of view but they're all too scared of The Clique
>> to speak up, and when you're in charge you'll Show Us All.
>
> I feel you're talking friendly and for good. But due to my poor English
> proficiency I don't seem to catch what you said.  

I think your English is good.  Even native speakers sometimes have
difficulty detecting sarcasm[1], which is notoriously easy to overlook
in written language.  I'm quite sure Matthew was being sarcastic here,
and was actually complimenting your behavior by "stating the opposite of
the intended meaning" (as the Wikipedia article on sarcasm explains it).

> PS: This Off-topic thread has been talked long and I'm sorry to bring
> excess load to vim mailing list, please mail directly to me if any vimmer
> friends wants to talk futher about it. Thanks.

I continue to be impressed by the Vim mailing list.  Contributors are
helpful, willing to spend time answering in detail, and above all very
polite.  This is one of the nicest "top- versus bottom-posting"
discussions I've seen on a mailing list :-)

Michael Henry

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Michael Henry-5
In reply to this post by Christian J. Robinson
Christian J. Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, [hidden email] wrote:
>> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting (i.e.
>> replied message shows before the original message),
>
> In my experience it's more that it can be frustrating to try to
> automatically position the cursor without the software "guessing"
> wrong, and it's not helpful for context replying (see below).  In
> other words, it's better to let the user move the cursor where
> he wants it.

I wonder whether the cursor starts at the top of the email message
because that's where the trimming would most naturally begin, rather
than to facilitate top-posting.  Perhaps it's the default "deletion
point" instead of the default "insertion point" :-)

Michael Henry

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

A.J.Mechelynck
In reply to this post by Michael Henry-5
Michael Henry wrote:
[...]
> I continue to be impressed by the Vim mailing list.  Contributors are
> helpful, willing to spend time answering in detail, and above all very
> polite.  This is one of the nicest "top- versus bottom-posting"
> discussions I've seen on a mailing list :-)
>
> Michael Henry

Yes indeed. In many a ML/NG I have known, this discussion would have long
before degenerated into throwing animal names.


Best regards,
Tony.
--
"About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the
ends."
                -- Herbert Hoover
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Matthew Winn-3
In reply to this post by Michael Henry-5
On Tue, 29 May 2007 06:25:40 -0400, Michael Henry
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Matthew Winn <[hidden email]> ???? 2007-05-29 16:10:57:
> >> That's the wrong attitude. This is the Internet. You're supposed to
> >> insist that you know better than everyone else even if they've been
> >> using the Internet for decades, and you have loads of lurkers who
> >> support your point of view but they're all too scared of The Clique
> >> to speak up, and when you're in charge you'll Show Us All.
> >
> > I feel you're talking friendly and for good. But due to my poor English
> > proficiency I don't seem to catch what you said.  
>
> I think your English is good.  Even native speakers sometimes have
> difficulty detecting sarcasm[1], which is notoriously easy to overlook
> in written language.  I'm quite sure Matthew was being sarcastic here,
> and was actually complimenting your behavior by "stating the opposite of
> the intended meaning" (as the Wikipedia article on sarcasm explains it).

I was; it hadn't occurred to me that it might not be clear to everyone
whose first language isn't English. The point I was making is that the
Vim list is civilised about discussions like this, unlike most places.

I've seen similar debates elsewhere where the top-poster's response
has been along the lines of "This is my Internet on my computer; I'm
going to behave how I want and I don't care how much trouble I cause
for other people."

--
Matthew Winn
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

A.J.Mechelynck
Matthew Winn wrote:
[...]
> I've seen similar debates elsewhere where the top-poster's response
> has been along the lines of "This is my Internet on my computer; I'm
> going to behave how I want and I don't care how much trouble I cause
> for other people."
>

:D :D :D


Best regards,
Tony.
--
Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do
the work.
                -- John G. Pollard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

iler.ml
In reply to this post by Dave Land
On 5/28/07, Dave Land <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> In the spirit contrarianism, I'm going to top-post now.
>
> Actually, both parts of Mark's post below were of a _third_ variety:
> "interlinear comments".

I disagree. Interlinear is not third variety, but a subcategory of
either top-posting, or of bottom-posting. To make it clearer:
If someone  A places his  comment *below* the quote he is
commenting on, this is bottom-posting, essentially -- although
split in pieces. If B places his comments right *above* quotes he is
commenting on, this is variant of bottom-posting.

When you are commenting on a single quote of somebody,
then what you call intelineated reduces to pure top-posting or bottom
posting.

There is yet another schol of responding, which is
to erase all previous material completely and include only
the response in the body. It can be summarised as "you
remember what you wrote, didn't you ? If you don't remember,
it's not *my* problem"

BTW since nobody interlineates his comments *above*
the quotes he's commenting on, I think this makes another
argument for bottom-posting.


Yakov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

iler.ml
In reply to this post by panshizhu
On 5/28/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting

some email clients have an option. But it does not help much.
Top-vs-bottom depends on the specific mailing list.
If I am on mailing list X which has convention of bottom-posting
and also on mailing list Y which has convention of top-posting,
then single option in mail client is not much helpful. gmail doesn't
have this option at all, but I dont feel invonvenienced.

Yakov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

A.J.Mechelynck
Yakov Lerner wrote:

> On 5/28/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As far as I know, most e-mail clients defaults to top-posting
>
> some email clients have an option. But it does not help much.
> Top-vs-bottom depends on the specific mailing list.
> If I am on mailing list X which has convention of bottom-posting
> and also on mailing list Y which has convention of top-posting,
> then single option in mail client is not much helpful. gmail doesn't
> have this option at all, but I dont feel invonvenienced.
>
> Yakov
>

Some mailers, such as Thunderbird which I use, have a thing named
"identities": I can set one or more identities for a each mail or news
account, and quoting preference (quote or not, and put the cursor above or
below the quote) is among the options I can set for each identity.

Of course, webmail accounts use browsers, not email clients, which means the
webmail provider makes its own rules and the customer has no choice of interface.

(As you can guess, I don't like webmail.)


Best regards,
Tony.
--
"A Mormon is a man that has the bad taste and the religion to do what a
good many other people are restrained from doing by conscientious
scruples and the police."
                -- Mr. Dooley
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why bottom-posting is prefered on Vim Mainling List?

Gene Kwiecinski
In reply to this post by panshizhu
>An explaination why top-post is easier to read:
>When I am viewing an e-mail, the reply is the main part of the message
and
>I usually quite aware of what the original post is. So I should be able
to
>see the reply when I open the message.

And if the message is edited down correctly, it likely will be.


>If the message is bottom post, I will have to scroll down and down to
find
>where the author really start to say something. If the reply starts on
line
>1000 while the messages ends on line 2000 it will be quite difficult to
>know line 1000 is the start of reply and I should read from that line.

Uhhh, 1000 lines of quoted-text needs some *serious* editing.  I try to
only include directly-relevant sections of text;  if someone needs to
see all 1000 previous messages to follow the thread, he's welcome to go
and get those messages.

Top quoting is okay for things that don't require any brainpower, like

        Okay, sounds good.

        >I was in the mood for pizza, if you wouldn't mind.
       
        >>Yeah, I was a little hungry.  Where do you want to go?

        >>>Anyone up for lunch?

and that's it.

Look at all the reply/text/reply/text/reply/text sections in just *this*
email.  Were you asking a technical question of multiple parts, it would
be easy to follow each little "subthread" in the email.  With
top-posting, I'm *NOT* going to constantly scroll down then back up to
make sure I addressed each and every issue.

(Not intended to sound snarky or addressed to you specifically, but to
The Reader in general...)  Quite simply, if it's too much of a bother
for you to properly format email, then it's too much of a bother for
*me* to answer completely.  It's that simple.  Worse, you don't know
which bundled-together paragraph in the top-posted reply belongs to
which section in the quoted text below, and that's *if* I choose to
address more than one issue in my reply.  If I see that it would require
replies to multiple sections of quoted text, I'm more likely than not to
get frustrated with how much extra work would be required to "plan" my
reply to make it clear for you to read (lacking any locational context
as to what part of the reply belongs with which section in the quoted
text), and simply not reply at all.


>While for the top-post, I know the first line is the start of reply and
I
>can read the reply without any difficulty. In an active forum, threads
>grown long quickly, with top-post, we focus on what the message saids
and
>waste no time.

And if 90% of the entire message is quoted text that's never even looked
at, why include it at all?  Again, that's the laziness of peoples'
refusal to properly edit their replies.


>Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem
is
>that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim
all
>"original messages" before I could read the actual reply.

Again, it's a lack of editing (ie, laziness) that creates this
"problem", *NOT* bottom-quoting in general.


>Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
>rule".

That'd work...
123