wrote:
I dont like bottom posting. I dont like to scroll down thru yards of previous posts
to get to a "me too" so mostly I delete posts where an answer is hidden yonder at the
bottom. I try to make sure it isnt necessary to reread everything another person
wrote to get at why I am replying.


Thread hijack alert. I am the moderator of another Usenet group
(rec.hunting) where having the quote at the top, and response at the
bottom is a REQUIREMENT. I created a "standard response" when people
would ask "why?" It may or may not be useful here.


If you've read the "Admin" posts about formatting text, you've
undoubtedly seen the part where it says:

2) Any quoted material must be ABOVE the new text, with your
comments (ie. the new text appearing AFTER the quoted text.
Appropriately interspacing the quoted text with your comments
is also allowable (actually, it's preferred). Note that this
is not just something we as the moderators are making up, but
rather is a real internet standard, defined in RFC 1855, section
3.1.1, item 10 (viewable at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/)).


I've had people over the years ask "why?", especially in light of the
fact that some programs, most notably Microsoft Outlook and Outlook
Express "want" you to do just the opposite. Being that this IS a
reasonable question, I will endeavor to go into that answer from my
point of view.

First of all, let it be known that I use Outlook Express myself (ok, I
wrote this a long time ago - I now use Thunderbird), so I'm not asking
anyone to do something I don't do myself....


But to the real answer:
Quite honestly, in email 1:1 (ie, between just you and 1 other person),
it's totally irrelevant what method is used. Even in group discussions,
it wouldn't be an issue if one method or the other was used exclusively.
The problem occurs when both methods are used as it inevitably leads to
mis-attribution of quoted text (eg. "I didn't say that; JimBob said
that").
It is in fact, the #1 cause of mis-attribution.

So to avoid these problems, one method or the other must be picked and
the only question is "which one?". There are 2 main reasons for us
arbitrarily picking (if we have reasons, is it arbitrary?) for picking
"quote at the top" over "quote below":

1) Item #4 of the posting guidelines says:
"All excess quoted material removed. At a minimum, this should
include the previous person's signature block. A good rule of
thumb is that your comments should have at least, and preferably
more, lines than you quoted."
There are a couple of reasons for this rule in and of itself - reduction
in bandwidth, less likelihood of exceeding INBOX quotas, and reduced
disk space requirements for the archives (yes, every message is saved in
the archives). As a general rule, you should have more text written by
you than you have quoted above - if you don't, you should evaluate what
it is that you have to say.

By having to scroll past the quoted text ("quote at the top"), the user
is given an greater opportunity to delete that un-needed portions of
quoted text. In fact, if you look at the posts where "quote below" is
used, it is virtually unheard of for them to remove any quoted text at
all.


2) "Quote above" allows for a reply on a point-by-point basis; this is
impossible with "quote below". As we know, some posts can be relatively
long and make multiple points (or ask multiple questions). It is
observed that unless you do a point-by-point, some of the points (or
questions) are completely ignored.


3) The "rule compliant signature" (again, the RFC's) states that a
signature must start with "-- " (dash dash space) on a line by itself,
so that email clients can auto delete the signature block on replies.
Putting the quote below will cause any "2nd level" remarks to also be
removed.


Does this help?



--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."

If everyone followed quote above the attributions would occur thus:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Z said
yes she did

On wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Y said
no he didnt

On tues, 21 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT X said
yes, he did

Instead of seeing this which I think is MOST CONFUSING
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Z said
On wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Y said
On tues, 21 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT X said
yes, he did
no he didnt
yes she did

So quick... who said no he didnt?

None of your arguments supports bottom posting.

I say not only is it confusing, it leads to the ME TOO posting which results in
scrolling thru a lot of confusing previous posts. ME TOO posters are the LEAST
interested in trimming posts.
OTOH, top posting is logical in that those who are following a thread already KNOW
what is being talked about and dont need to scroll thru reams to find the subject.

Ingrid

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT, Chris Barnes wrote:
The problem occurs when both methods are used as it inevitably leads to
mis-attribution of quoted text

wrote:

I dont like bottom posting. I dont like to scroll down thru yards of previous
posts to get to a "me too" so mostly I delete posts where an answer is hidden
yonder at the bottom. I try to make sure it isnt necessary to reread
everything another person wrote to get at why I am replying.

Bottom posting makes way more sense to me. I can read what was written
chronologically. If I have been following the thread I can scroll to the
bottom. There are few posts where the content is so large as to make
scrolling an issue.

Another method is to post in the message, replying to specific pieces of the
post where they occur.


San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Koi, Goldfish, and RES named Colombo.

wrote:

If everyone followed quote above the attributions would occur thus:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Z said
yes she did

On wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Y said
no he didnt

On tues, 21 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT X said
yes, he did

Instead of seeing this which I think is MOST CONFUSING
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Z said
On wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT Y said
On tues, 21 Oct 2008 15:31:15 EDT X said
yes, he did
no he didnt
yes she did

So quick... who said no he didnt?

You missed the point - it's not just "who said what" (and anyway, that's
easy - watch the indent level - Z), it's "in reply to what" - that's the
part that you managed to lose track of because of your own quoting style,
and in this example, you've managed to lose any hint of what anybody is
responding to.

None of your arguments supports bottom posting.

Indeed - if you followed his arguments, you'd realize he _didn't_ call for
bottom posting. He said "quote above", but "respond to points". Reply
below what you're quoting, but ONLY quote relevant parts, and respond to
each point in turn.
--
derek

Copy this and move to above what Joe really wrote or delete entirely:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:07:47 EDT, San Diego Joe wrote:

Since I wish to reply to Joe I would delete below between the *****
*****
wrote:

I dont like bottom posting. I dont like to scroll down thru yards of previous
posts to get to a "me too" so mostly I delete posts where an answer is hidden
yonder at the bottom. I try to make sure it isnt necessary to reread
everything another person wrote to get at why I am replying.

*****
Top line moved here and add a :
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:07:47 EDT, San Diego Joe wrote:

Bottom posting makes way more sense to me.
San Diego Joe

I delete all that Joe said leaving just enough so folks know what I'm
replying to plus his sig. if I've deleted the time, sig. auto stamp.

It isn't that hard to EDIT a post. The problem with bottom posting is
nothing is edited and I omg, diva that I am may have to scroll down to
see what the heck latest poster is replying to.

I fight this sometimes with my cybersisters, about not leaving enough of
what I said hours ago to know what their "Me Too" is referring to. ;-) And
that requires more than scrolling, but finding last e-mail perhaps among
many.

I've yet to see just a "Me Too" without more info posted since we changed
to moderated form. ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

~ jan wrote:

It isn't that hard to EDIT a post. The problem with bottom posting is
nothing is edited and I omg, diva that I am may have to scroll down to
see what the heck latest poster is replying to.

:-) That's fine. If people bottom-post after two screens worth of quote,
nobody will read their posts, or reply to them, and they'll either just
give up or become more terse.

I figure bad bottom-posting is entirely self-limiting.
--
derek

~ jan wrote:

It isn't that hard to EDIT a post. The problem with bottom posting is
nothing is edited and I omg, diva that I am may have to scroll down to
see what the heck latest poster is replying to.

Sorry, it must be opposite day. Replace bottom with top.

The problem with TOP posting is nothing is edited and
I omg, diva that I am may have to scroll down to
see what the heck latest poster is replying to. ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us