🚀 go-pugleaf

Frank F. Matthews (matthews942@comcast.net) wrote:
: For the most part your points either have little connection to the 
: posting location or appear to recommend top posting.

: Richard Bonner wrote:

: > ***   You have forgotten the following points:

: > 1/ Posts don't always arrive in order from all servers to all other
: > servers.

: No apparent connection.

***   If the posts are out of order, the top-posted comments will appear
before the comments to which it applies. Thus, the reader must scroll down
and then back up again to see to what the top-posted comment refers. One
can never be sure how many other posts arrived between it and the ones
before.


: > 2/ In a thread with multiple subjects and multiple posters, one must
: > scroll down to see to what the comment refers. If the quotes are not
: > trimmed, one can not always be sure to which point the top-posted
: > comments belong.

: Perhaps.  However the comment usually refers to the last post which is 
: immediately below the comment

***   If it arrives in order and if the previous one was not bottom
posted. Even at that, there is no guarantee that the top-poster wanted to
refer to the last post. Posting comments directly under the quoted text
eliminates any ambiguity.


: > 3/ If multiple comments are posted, readers must scroll down and them back
: > up again to match the points with the comments.

: If you are replying to multiple points then neither top or bottom 
: posting makes sense.

***   That is my point. That is why interspersed comments among edited
quotes is the most logical and least confusing method. We are both
adhering to that now.


: > 4/ In threads where some comments are top posted and others not, the
: > message stream is jumbled and that makes the above two points even
: > more valid.

: Consistency is useful.  Consistent top posting is better than consistent 
: bottom posting as I noted.

***   For the other reasons I gave, I disagree.


: > 5/ For readers that read multiple groups, they do not necessarily follow a
: > thread right through because they are off on other groups for a time. So
: > they must refer to the message stream and if it's jumbled, they cannot
: > easily reconstruct it.

: And the connection is?

***   One needs to re-read the quotes to get back into the gist of the
thread and of that particular conversation. That cause more back & forth
scrolling.


: > 6/ For readers that visit infrequently, some messages may have dropped
: > off the server, so it's important to give an in-order message stream. It's
: > also needed so that the reader may get back up to speed on what was said,
: > and finally to the comments of the last poster that can be placed into
: > the context. This is opposed to seeing those comments and then having to
: > scroll down to assimilate them with the thoughts of the others posting.

: A comment on trimming not on posting location.

***   I see it as a comment on both. Getting back up to speed works well
if the reader can read the quotes and comments in order, not in reverse
order. Reading in reverse order is a pain because one goes to the bottom,
reads that quote and then must scroll up past what was just read, then 
past the second quote so as to be able to read down it. Then one has to
scroll past that to get to the start of the third. The result is a
constant down/up, down/up, down/up - all the while constantly scrolling
past every block of text twice.  )-:


: > 7/ In threads that deal with programming or instructions, it's important
: > for that to all be in order.

: If you are posting sequential information you are unlikely to be doing 
: that in multiple posts.

***   Not so. I see it all the time in computer groups as various posters
discuss the merits of the code or method, and then post their own
variations or suggestions.


: > 8/ Top Posting invariably means that in long threads, the quoted text is
: > repeated time and time again, clogging the newsgroup server with
: > redundant information and lowering retention time.

: Actually, top posting makes reasonable trimming easier and thus more likely.

***   How so?


   Below is a bad example where there is more quoted text. I just had to
slog through that to find out that Frank did not make any further
comments.  Again, this caused unnecessary scrolling and frustration.

Richard

(Don't bother scrolling down - there is only repeated text with no
comments attached. I left it to show how annoying it is.

R.


:  > Frank F. Matthews (matthews942@comcast.net) wrote:
:  > : ...if you look rationally top posting make good sense.  The major
:  > : advantages are two fold.  First, it locates the new information at the
:  > : beginning of the message while retaining the message stream in a 
: single
:  > : document.
:  >

: > : To me though another significant advantage is that it 
: > : connects the identification of the person posting with the post in a 
: > : convenient manner.  
: > 
: > ***   This is why people should use signatures so that their names will be
: > associated with the text immediately above it.
: > 
: > 
: > : For example:
: > 
: > : with top posting.
: > 
: > : Name 3
: > : message 3
: > 
: > : name 2
: > : message 2
: > 
: > : name 1 message 1
: > 
: > : with bottom posting
: > 
: > : name 3
: > 
: > : name 2
: > 
: > :  > name 1
: > 
: > :  >> message 1
: > 
: > :  >message 2
: > 
: > : message 3
: > 
: > ***   Actually, it's
: > 
: > name 1
: > 
: > 
: >>name 2
: > 
: > 
: >>>name 3
: > 
: > 
: > message 1
: > 
: > 
: >>message 2
: > 
: > 
: >>>message 3
: > 
: > 
: >    ...at least in my newsreader.
: > 
: > 
: > : The first format makes much more sense.  If it were not for the 
: > : irrational rants of the fashion police I would use it fairly 
: > : consistently.  
: > 
: > ***   That's *newsgroup police*.  (-:
: > 
: >    The problem is that with top posting, the text does not flow in a
: > conversational manner.
: > 
: > 
: > : Alas the Neanderthals around get off into a major fit so 
: > : I use the bad format for the most part.  Unless a rational poster is the 
: > : one I am responding to.
: > 
: > ***   I am a rational poster, so conversation is important and logical.
: > 
: > 
: > : As a real dinosaur I have no idea why the Neanderthals get their 
: > : knickers in such a twit but they do.
: > 
: > ***   It's because top posting is a nuisance to read because it causes so 
: > much back & forth scrolling and work on the reader's part to match the
: > comment with the quoted text.
: > 
: > 
: > : I agree that middle posting sometimes makes sense in the situation you note.
: > 
: > ***   Such as this. I prefer to call it "interspersed posting", by the
: > way. Middle posting causes readers to scroll down past all the stuff after
: > the middle comment looking for more comments which don't exist.
: > 
: > 
: > 
: > : As far as trimming of posts is concerned given the identifications I 
: > : mention it is usually done so badly that unless line prefixes are 
: > : carefully counted individuals often appear to have said something that 
: > : is actually the responsibility of another.  
: > 
: > ***    That is indeed sometimes the case, but as you say, it is done so
: > badly, that it is also a nuisance to the reader.
: > 
: > 
: > : Or it trims so much that you 
: > : have no idea what the message is a response to without a long search 
: > : thru the message tree.
: > 
: > ***   Yup. I hate that too.
: > 
: > Richard
: > 
: > PS: Thanks for bottom posting, Frank,  (-:
: > 
: > R.