A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Stamps » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 15th 04, 08:27 PM
Tracy Barber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:05:47 GMT, "Ada Prill"
wrote:

For those of us who have news readers that bunch postings by thread, it is
extremely irritating to read message A, scroll through A to get to B six
seconds later, scroll through A and B to get to C six seconds after that,
etc. If I have not recently seen A and B, it is easy enough to refresh my
memory by scrolling down, but the usual situation is that I have JUST read
the postings that I must scroll through to get to the new information. When
the thread gets long, I really detest having to go through multiple screens
of previously read stuff to get to something at the bottom that says "I
agree with XXX," when I could have found this brief entry quite easily on
the top.


Are you getting digests or something? Each of the posts in the
newsgroup are distinct messages in Free Agent. I answer them as
though they were e-mail, in a linear fashion.

Answer one, close, move on to the next message.

Fortunately, I don't have to see all the same thread in the same
message. That's gotta be nuts!

Anyway, I like my simple method... :^) I don't have those issues of
having 3 messages of the same thread in 1 message and have to scroll
through them. Yikes!

Tracy Barber
Ads
  #12  
Old January 15th 04, 08:50 PM
Ada Prill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Barber"

I don't have those issues of
having 3 messages of the same thread in 1 message and have to scroll
through them. Yikes!



No, Tracy, I don't have everything in a single message. What I have is all
the replies listed right under the message replied to, in the order posted.
So I usually read them in that order, and by message #8, with bottom posting
I am scrolling through seven messages that I've read within the past 3
minutes, six of which I had to scroll through just seconds before to get to
#7. It's maddening. With top posting I can just read what's new and not have
to go through everything that preceded it repeated over and over in that one
batch of postings.

Ada


  #13  
Old January 15th 04, 09:54 PM
Bob Ingraham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

1/15/2004 11:05 AM

Top posted, in honor of Ada Prill.

If newsgroupies would snip appropriately and judiciously, it wouldn't matter
whether posts were top, bottom, or on the side. I believe that someone --
Ada, I think -- has made that point. In one very reasonably moderated group
that I frequent, snipping is a requirement that makes good sense. It is very
easy to follow threads.

It's also worth noting that unless this newsgroup were to become a moderated
group, Hell will freeze over before you get such a diverse group as we to
follow any standard posting procedure. It ain't gonna happen, folks!

Now about Ada's "belligerence"! That's quite an image! Informed she is, and
generous, and broad-minded, and, yes, assertive. But those are good
qualities, noted in Ada's posts time and again over the several years that I
have been a member of this newsgroup.

Newsgroups posts can be so easily mis-read that it's important to choose
words carefully. It also behooves newbies to get to know the newsgroup over
time, rather than wading in to the fray with little knowledge. If Mr.
Sullivan's first post to this group had been met with the same apparent
vehemence that he dished out to Ada, I wonder whether he would still be
here.

Bob Ingraham

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As a newcomer to this news group I note that you have exercised your
right to choose (to top post) but failed to give any credible reasons
for doing so - or any incredible ones for that matter.


big snip


Perhaps you might explain WHY you top-post and the reason for your
apparent belligerence.


  #14  
Old January 15th 04, 10:30 PM
Ada Prill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you, Bob. I certainly meant no offense to anyone - but obviously this
issue pushed a lot of my buttons! I have been posting to this group and its
predecessor since 1996, and there have been many changes in the way
newsgroups are presented for reading during that time as browsers and
newsreaders evolve. To drag out some obsolete "rules" from 1995 that nobody
has ever paid any attention to (at least since 1996) seems arbitrary at
best.

Anyway, I appreciate the kind words from you and others. And if Blair wants
to bottom-post, I'll read his posts anyway, because he usually has something
good to contribute.

Ada

"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...
Now about Ada's "belligerence"! That's quite an image! Informed she is,

and
generous, and broad-minded, and, yes, assertive. But those are good
qualities, noted in Ada's posts time and again over the several years that

I
have been a member of this newsgroup.



  #15  
Old January 15th 04, 10:32 PM
Bill Sharpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:08:58 GMT, "Bill Sharpe"
wrote:

It all depends...
If I am following a thread, I already know what the previous poster has
said. Scrolling to the bottom of a post to see the reply gets old fast.


What if the reply is several days later and you have read numerous
other news groups and threads in between postings? Do you really
remember what every previous poster said? I am humbled if you do.

Not a problem. I don't read that many posts. Generally speaking I find
threads much easier to follow with top posting. I already know what the
previous poster has said -- I am looking for the next poster's response and
it's much easier to see this if it's at the top of the post.

I do not automatically delete read messages, so if necessary I can either
scroll down or re-read the previous post.

Bill


  #16  
Old January 15th 04, 10:36 PM
Bill Sharpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm with you, Ada. It's much faster to follow a thread with top posting.

Bill

"Ada Prill" wrote in message
...
No, Tracy, I don't have everything in a single message. What I have is all
the replies listed right under the message replied to, in the order

posted.
So I usually read them in that order, and by message #8, with bottom

posting
I am scrolling through seven messages that I've read within the past 3
minutes, six of which I had to scroll through just seconds before to get

to
#7. It's maddening. With top posting I can just read what's new and not

have
to go through everything that preceded it repeated over and over in that

one
batch of postings.

Ada



See above G


  #17  
Old January 15th 04, 11:34 PM
S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:50:38 GMT, "Ada Prill"
wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Barber"

I don't have those issues of
having 3 messages of the same thread in 1 message and have to scroll
through them. Yikes!

(S: Tracy, if using Agent, you have a choice, see below.)
(Ada answered:

No, Tracy, I don't have everything in a single message. What I have is all
the replies listed right under the message replied to, in the order posted.
So I usually read them in that order, and by message #8, with bottom posting
I am scrolling through seven messages that I've read within the past 3
minutes, six of which I had to scroll through just seconds before to get to
#7. It's maddening. With top posting I can just read what's new and not have
to go through everything that preceded it repeated over and over in that one
batch of postings.

Ada
++++++++++++++

Ada and Tracy:
To keep this "on-topic", I can agree that if Nettiquette stipulates
bottom-posting, that's the rule; a bit like saying all Drivers must
drive in the left lane, and traffic will flow nicely.

But if a friend sends me an E-mail asking a question, I will probably
top-reply because he already knows his question and he is looking for
the answer. If his question is multi-faceted, the replies can be
interspersed, and then it would be more logical to see one facet at a
time, with his Question first, my answer below that part of his
question. That could be the logic which favors the Netiqette rule for
bottom posting.
+++++++++++

Now, about threads and using Agent. Since i have always used fully
registered Agent (from snailmail CD and Instruction manual), i am not
sure about capabilites of the "free" version. As i read RCSD, my
monitor shows standard triple window, a panel of NewsGroups in upper
left, a panel of RCSD headers in upper right, and the entire bottom
half displaying contents of the header which i have selected to read.

Threading is an optional feature in the upper right window of headers.
Across the top of that window there are 4 column titles:
Thread (this can be altered) (Status, or Size)
Subject
Author
Date. (you may need to drag the "author" divider leftward to bring
"date" into view, or maximize that panel.)

Clicking on "Thread", will change to "Size", click again and it goes
back to threading, Size can arrange the whole batch by Filesize
without regard to date, author, etc. Threading will show all replies
under the originating Subject, and this is the method Ada described.

Clicking on Subject arranges all post titles alphabetically, and first
column says "status". Threading is automatic by subject
(alphabetical), unless someone changes the header.

Clicking on Author arranges all posts alphabetically by name of the
person who posted, subdivided in chronological order of that author's
participation (Rodney's, for example) .

Clicking on Date arranges all posts in strict Chronological order, and
that is my personal preference. This is the arrangement which Tracy
described. While in Date mode, the first column says "status".
Click on Status and it will change to "Thread", and in front of TC's
original "Why is bottom-posting better...", there is a page symbol,
then a pentagonal box enclosing a + sign, followed by [+14], fourteen
elements. A similar Thread, with " (corrected)" added to subject line,
shows [+4] more, and when Ada dropped the word "why" it became a new
thread starting with "Is......"
Click on the pentagon and the elements are all lined up below the
original post, as Ada mentioned.
++++++++++++++

So many choices!
That's good.
Each to his own, even top-posting.
But did this one work better bottom-posted?
S.
  #18  
Old January 16th 04, 01:38 AM
Ed Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I generally prefer top-posting, as it is quick and direct-to-the-point.
Bottom-posting is appropriate where you are responding specifically to
something posted earlier. Often, however, what has been said in earlier
threads is just background and only relevant in terms of general context.

If I am contributing to a topic--as in this case--but not responding
specifically to a particular posting, I will top-post. I could have
dropped down behind hundreds of lines of previous comments and posted
this comment as a bottom-posting. Instead, I deleted it all in respect
for those who feel top-posting is a major breach of Usenet protocol
(which is probably an oxmoyron).

Ed Jackson
  #19  
Old January 16th 04, 01:57 AM
Bob Ingraham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would like to add what is perhaps the last word in this thread. While I
prefer bottoms, tops are pleasant as well. :^)

boB

  #20  
Old January 16th 04, 02:10 AM
Tracy Barber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:34:13 -0600, S wrote:

Clicking on Subject arranges all post titles alphabetically, and first
column says "status". Threading is automatic by subject
(alphabetical), unless someone changes the header.


Exactly my point. My posts come in - in topic order and then date
time. I can follow a thread without having to do anything special.

I don't know why someone has to scroll through messages to get to
where they need to be and answer.

Example, in my group window:

Topic1 - message 1
message 2
message 3

Topic2 - message 1
message 2

....

I don't know what the big deal is. I pick the message, read it. If I
want to reply, I do. If not, I close and get the next message in
line.

I don't keep previously read messages. If I need to find something,
I'll go back a week that my ISP offers or Google.

By the way, my Free version works the same way as the pay for version,
in this respect.

Tracy Barber
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top or Bottom Posting? The Silver Jar... Coins 2 January 26th 05 08:01 AM
Polly Pockets with Dolls & Other PP Items F S Sue from NY General 0 August 28th 03 05:54 PM
Polly Pockets with Dolls & Other PP Items FS Sue from NY Dolls 0 August 28th 03 05:51 PM
CPK Items For Sale!!! Disregard Below - Sorry Sue from NY Dolls 0 August 8th 03 08:48 PM
Polly Pockets Inside Assorted Items For Sale Sue from NY Dolls 0 August 8th 03 06:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.