Hi.

I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

>> Here is the third response.
>>>> Here is the first response.
>>>>> Here is the original post.
>>> Here is the second response.
> Here is the fourth response.

Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

Bill

For a "stand-alone" reply, top is probably preferable...

For comments on a post, they should typically be after
the text on which it apply...

> Hi.
>
> I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
>
>  >> Here is the third response.
>  >>>> Here is the first response.
>  >>>>> Here is the original post.
>  >>> Here is the second response.
>  > Here is the fourth response.
>
> Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.
>
> I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.
>
> Bill
>

Well Bill, I see

"Bill Cox" <bill@viasic.com> wrote in message news:bhvsjj$25j4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hi.
>
> I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
>
>  >> Here is the third response.
>  >>>> Here is the first response.
>  >>>>> Here is the original post.
>  >>> Here is the second response.
>  > Here is the fourth response.
>
> Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

your point, but sometimes it is important to answer several specific parts, whereas other

>
> I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.
>
> Bill
>

times one can simply reply at the bottom.

What a conundrum!

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:26:13 -0400 (08/20/03 23:26:13)
, Bill Cox <bill@viasic.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
>
> >> Here is the third response.
> >>>> Here is the first response.
> >>>>> Here is the original post.
> >>> Here is the second response.
> > Here is the fourth response.
>
> Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.
>
> I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

I've adopted the method of placing my response directly underneath the subject of my response.

Fortunately I tend to us Opera's newsreader (M2) and that color codes the levels of reply so its a LOT easier to see who is replying to what.


-- 
Derek

Bill Cox wrote...
> I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
> 
>  >> Here is the third response.
>  >>>> Here is the first response.
>  >>>>> Here is the original post.
>  >>> Here is the second response.
>  > Here is the fourth response.
> 
> Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

I prefer the reply at the bottom. This is because it's a reply to a message. When reading you first see the original text and then the posters reply. This is the style prefered in german newsgroups. The other style is called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post this way you'll get flamed in german groups.


> I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

That's the way I also prefer.


- Heinz

Heinz Saathoff wrote:
> 
> Bill Cox wrote...
> > I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group
...
> >  I currently bottom post, due to the
> > logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.
> 
> That's the way I also prefer.
> 
> - Heinz

This group is very tolerant.

Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet. Bottom is logical, reader friendly and the standard.

So if a discussion should start, then the outcome is predicable.

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

Heinz Saathoff wrote:
> The other style is called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post this way you'll get flamed in german groups.

This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should delete it altogether. I didn't ever get flamed for not quoting, but i did for TOFU. :) I believe the fullquote above is much worse than below. So i tend to pick several sentences out of the original message, just to show connection, and try to avoid fullquotes.

-eye

Thanks for all the info.  I'm really not much of a news group reader.

It sounds like bottom-posting wins, and deleting portions of previous posts is good.

Bill

Blame Outlook Express, which defaults the cursor to the top in a reply. Older mail programs (Netscape) got this right.

Sean

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3F44B997.245E63AB@chello.at...
> This group is very tolerant.
>
> Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet. Bottom is logical, reader friendly and the standard.
>
> So if a discussion should start, then the outcome is predicable.

Ilya Minkov schrieb...
> Heinz Saathoff wrote:
> > The other style is called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post this way you'll get flamed in german groups.
> 
> This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should delete it altogether.

That's right.

> I didn't ever get flamed for not quoting, but i did for TOFU. :) I believe the fullquote above is much worse than below.

A fullquote is bad in both cases. Especially if the quote is very long and the reply is only one/two lines. I've seen 200+ lines of fullquote and a single 'Ack' or 'Me too' as reply.

> So i tend to pick several sentences out of the original message, just to show connection, and try to avoid fullquotes.

ACK

- Heinz