Re: [UUPoly-L] Top/Bottom Posting POVs

"Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net> · Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:45:10 -0000

I said:

> So, yes, those who aren't on digest need to be more aware 
> of not top
> posting, ...

And CWLee replied: 
<<That is one POV, but not mine.

My POV is that we SHOULD top post, whether on digest or not.

There are reasons for and against each of those POVs.>>

To clarify, when I mean 'need to be more aware of not top posting', I don't
mean posting a reply above an *abbreviated* and properly attributed quote. I
mean the Outlook standard of posting a reply above the *full* mail, without
editing.  This type of "top posting", which is what most folks mean when
they refer to top posting, while appropriate for business (indeed, in many
companies that's the "best practices standard", and one only retains the
last email in a chain for filing, since it has the entire thread appended),
is *not* appropriate for email lists/groups, as this leaves digest readers
scrolling through page after page after page of repeated messages, unable to
find the original content among the infinite duplicates. It also
unnecessarily eats up storage space and bandwidth (not as much as it used to
in the early days, but still relevant in many cases.)

And yes, it's my opinion, but it's not just my opinion, it's generally the
Internet standard of e-list etiquette, and has been since the early 90s (and
originated in the days when USENET and BBSs were more popular than mailing
lists.)  When a list has netiquette guidelines, this is often one of them.

" 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. This will make sure readers understand when they
start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by
distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps
everyone. But do not include the entire original!" ~ RFC 1855 Netiquette
Guidelines 
		http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html

"Top-posting is viewed as seriously destructive to mailing-list digests,
where multiple levels of top-posting are difficult to skip. The worst case
would be top-posting while including an entire digest as the original
message.

Some believe that "top-posting" is appropriate for interpersonal e-mail, but
inline posting should always be applied to threaded discussions such as
newsgroups. Objections to top-posting on newsgroups, as a rule, seem to come
from persons who first went online in the earlier days of Usenet, and in
communities that date to Usenet's early days. Among the most vehement
communities are those in the Usenet comp.lang hierarchy, especially
comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. Top-posting is more tolerated on the alt
hierarchy. Newer online participants, especially those with limited
experience of Usenet, tend to be less sensitive to arguments about posting
style." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

"DO NOT TOP-POST and DO trim your replies!!! Top-posting is the annoying
practice of replying to a message by typing your response above that to
which you are responding. This is a Bad ThingT because your readers will
have to scroll down and extract the essential of the existing thread in
order to grasp the context of your reply, and then scroll back up again to
read your reply.

Posting a "me too" comment at the bottom of a 100+ line message is no better
because people have to scroll all the way down through 100+ lines they've
already read in order to see your one-liner. One word comes to mind for
that: frustrating.

The generally accepted "right way" of doing things is called "inline
posting", whereby you insert your comments straight after that on which you
are commenting, having stripped unnecessary text from the original quoted
text. The end result is something which makes much more sense because it
reads like a conversation.

More information on why top-posting is a Bad ThingT here:

    Top posting according to The Ursine Wiki
http://ursine.dyndns.org/wiki/index.php?title=Top_Posting
    The Absolute Beginner's guide to Usenet - FAQ - Top Posting
	http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html
    Top posting vs. bottom posting
	http://www.mail-archive.com/brin-l@coollist.com/msg00178.html
    Dan's Mail Format Site | Quoting | Bottom Posting
	http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html
    Email quotes and inclusion conventions
	http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style.html";

		~ Usenet and Mail Posting Netiquette
		http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php#toppost

So, yes... my statement that top posting (i.e., without editing the portion
quoted, which is the general usage of the term) is very bad on mailing lists
(and similar 'net media) may be a P.O.V., but on most mailing lists it's the
prevailing P.O.V. ... so much so, that it's generally considered proper
netiquette (except in certain specific 'net communities.) 

NT, 
Cat