Off topic: What is "top posting"?

Ruby
61

“Austin Z.” [email protected] wrote:

Please don’t pretend that either the forum or Usenet is prime here.
Once you gateway it to Usenet, that is prime. There are
instantly millions of potential readers, plus it is archived
and will be read by people decades from today. Usenet eclipses
anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
regardless of how it all began.

They’re alternative views on the mailing list, but both are gatewayed
to and from the mailing list.

Forum users: yes, mailing list people and Usenet people get pissed off
with top posters (r) contextless posters because we may not have the
originating message immediately in front of us, even with a threading
newsreader or mail reader.

In fact, in a forum where the context supposedly is available, it is
not effectively available. Usually it is impossible to determine
even which article is being responded to, much less which part of the
article the comment applies to.

That simply is not effective communications.

62

David V. [email protected] wrote:

is out of respect to them.
Perhaps his time is not worth much to him either. He says he is
willing to waste time generating Usenet/Forum/MailingList
articles that are less than effective because he won’t take the
time to learn how to communicate efficiently. (The opposite of
“If you can’t be good, be good at it.” ?? :slight_smile:

That of course assumes an intent to communicate, which may or
may not actually exist (for many people, though I’m not accusing
the OP of this).

It is a binary condition, where some people post articles
intended for others (to read and understand and respond to),
while some people post to generate therapeutic noise. It makes
them feel good, and readers are irrelevant. For them Usenet is
a one-way medium. We see all shades of that, where there are
many who post that clearly never ever read anything posted by
anyone else, down to those who do read others, but are still
essentially posting only for their own benefit.

(I think that when social science researchers discover the “data
bank” that is in a Usenet archive, there will be no end of what
can be learned about the human mind.)

63

unknown wrote:

“Austin Z.” [email protected] wrote:

Please don’t pretend that either the forum or Usenet is prime here.
Once you gateway it to Usenet, that is prime. There are
instantly millions of potential readers, plus it is archived
and will be read by people decades from today. Usenet eclipses
anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
regardless of how it all began.

You do realize there are many, many, many more people that know how to
use a web browser than know how to use usenet? Google indexes
ruby-forum.com. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more useful to search google
than search usenet if you want answers about Ruby. You will not only
get posts from this forum, but also from the rest of the internet. So
from your own argument, the forum is prime.

In reality, the mailing list is prime. It is apparently what most of
the regulars use, and they are the ones that answer the majority of the
questions. When you want an answer, the number of potential readers
does not matter. Only the number of potential (correct) responders
does. That majority of those are on the mailing list.

Now, everyone keeps going on about ‘if you want an answer, you’ll have
to post in a certain way’. This is not true. I have not seen 1 post on
here that failed to get an answer because someone top-posted. I’ve seen
plenty of ‘don’t top post’ replies, but the majority of them were tagged
onto an answer. If changing the format of your post doesn’t change the
answer, how is the ‘wrong way’ ineffective?

64

Top posting is less logical than bottom posting.

We all (maybe almost all?) read from top to bottom,
thus new entries are appended at bottom.

I dont ever top post, and I rarely (in fact I’d
even claim never) see top posting in the ~ dozen
mailing list I do read/participate.

Dont think “etiquette” comes before logic.
I dare to claim that whoever comes up with
etiquette ALSO follows logic. :wink:

65

Jeff P. [email protected] wrote:

Isn’t the root of the disagreement the fact that some of us only use the
web portal and others choose to get the email version of the the list?

It isn’t the difference between web and email, it is a different
presentation philosophy. The same philosophy can be applied
to either web or email based deliver mechanisms. It also happens
that each philosophy targets a particular style of discussion.

Quite frankly I view one (the typical style used by forums) as a
shallow approach to communications that pivots mostly on being
easy to learn (i.e., it is so simple there is nothing to learn);
while the one used by a good email reader is a very
sophisticated and well thought out method designed to promote
precise communications, but requires significant effort over
time to learn how to use in a way that can be called easy.

Typically people who want to chit chat with others for social
purposes have very little need or desire to put in the effort
required to learn how to make good use of a software package
that can produce precise communications. Hence the web forum
style that has developed is quite effective as a tool for
“social gatherings”.

But for detailed technical discussions common to academics,
scientists, engineers, etc., the more precise mechanisms are
much preferred.

Newsgroups where discussion is non-technical are much more
likely to be accepting of top-posting, while newsgroups where
technical topics are the norm are much less accepting of top
posting.

It is perhaps a common and obnoxious habit of pedantic techies
to boost their preferred style even in places where it is an
unnecessary burden on others. It is perhaps an equally common
and obnoxious habit for those who top-post to do it in places
where it is not appropriate, just to rattle the cages of
pedantic techies. (Shame on us all…)

In a web forum setting, one typically reads down a thread from top to
bottom and only occasionally needs to reference the quoted stuff when
the context isn’t clear from what they read up above.

There is virtually no continuity in context available in that
way. Half the time it isn’t even possible to determine exactly
which article is being referenced, much less what part of it.

That has a very significant limiting effect on the discussion
that occurs. But given the editors typically available via a
web browser, few people would make use of the different style
anyway!

I assume that when getting the new posting in an email it would be
frustrating to get a long answer out of context, followed by a quoted
question or part of somebody else’s reply.

The real question is why isn’t either the web version or the email
version clearly superior to everyone? The two are quite different
delivery systems, and yet there is no clear winner over time. We
continue to have VHS and Betamax for eternity. That’s what strikes me
as odd.

See the discussion above. There are indeed two mechanisms, but
there are also two targets. Each mechanism was honed for a
different target.

66

William C. [email protected] wrote:

unknown wrote:

Whats with the “unknown” attribute? Are you afraid to associate
my name with the statements I make?

use a web browser than know how to use usenet?
Which doesn’t mean that any significant percentage of them read
Web forums, much less that particular forum.

Google indexes
ruby-forum.com. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more useful to search google
than search usenet if you want answers about Ruby. You will not only
get posts from this forum, but also from the rest of the internet. So
from your own argument, the forum is prime.

For the google search engine, they are exactly equal.

In reality, the mailing list is prime.

Not even close.

It is apparently what most of
the regulars use, and they are the ones that answer the majority of the
questions.

That means it is likely to be high on the list for those who
read what is posted within a day or two of it being posted.

When you want an answer, the number of potential readers
does not matter.

You seem willing to make just about any damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means…

That is trivially false.

Only the number of potential (correct) responders
does. That majority of those are on the mailing list.

And the reverse? For those who wish to post useful answers?
The vast majority of readers they target will not be on the
mailing list.

Regardless, where the “majority” of those potentially correct
responders are located is not significant for someone who wants
an answer. They still want maximum exposure, simply because the
one correct answer that they understand best might come from a
minority.

Now, everyone keeps going on about ‘if you want an answer, you’ll have
to post in a certain way’. This is not true. I have not seen 1 post on
here that failed to get an answer because someone top-posted. I’ve seen
plenty of ‘don’t top post’ replies, but the majority of them were tagged
onto an answer. If changing the format of your post doesn’t change the
answer, how is the ‘wrong way’ ineffective?

You are blowing blue smoke.

On any forum there are often articles that garner less
response than others simply because the questions are ill
stated, the article is awkwardly formatted, or any number of
similar limiting factors.

67

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:

unknown wrote:

Whats with the “unknown” attribute? Are you afraid to associate
my name with the statements I make?

The forum doesn’t say your name. I assume that’s because you are on
usenet, and it’s failing to parse your name. No slight is intended.

use a web browser than know how to use usenet?
Which doesn’t mean that any significant percentage of them read
Web forums, much less that particular forum.

Ditto for those reading usenet.

Google indexes
ruby-forum.com. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more useful to search google
than search usenet if you want answers about Ruby. You will not only
get posts from this forum, but also from the rest of the internet. So
from your own argument, the forum is prime.

For the google search engine, they are exactly equal.

My argument was searching the newsgroup vs searching the entire
internet, including this newsgroup via ruby-forum.com. There’s no way
you can possibly think those are going to provide the same results. The
‘entire internet’ method has got to provide more.

In reality, the mailing list is prime.

Not even close.

You aren’t arguing that with me. Someone earlier provided evidence that
the mailing list is prime. You’ll have to argue that with them.

When you want an answer, the number of potential readers
does not matter.

You seem willing to make just about any damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means…

That is trivially false.

Only when taken out of context. You shouldn’t split my paragraphs and
try to make each sentence an entire argument by itself.

Only the number of potential (correct) responders
does. That majority of those are on the mailing list.

And the reverse? For those who wish to post useful answers?
The vast majority of readers they target will not be on the
mailing list.

We have already determined that those here who post useful answers all
do so under the rules of the mailing list/newsgroup/forum. I can’t
imagine why you’d want to start arguing about nothing.

Regardless, where the “majority” of those potentially correct
responders are located is not significant for someone who wants
an answer. They still want maximum exposure, simply because the
one correct answer that they understand best might come from a
minority.

Before you argued that getting your message across to those who can
answer is the goal. Now you say it isn’t. The method of communication
HAS to match the arena it is presented in. You wouldn’t try to use
hand-signals on the radio, and you wouldn’t top-post in a forum that
doesn’t allow top-posting, if you truly wanted an answer. Assuming you
KNOW these limitations, of course. Not everyone does, hence the OP’s
question.

You are blowing blue smoke.

“You seem willing to make just about any damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means…” - unknown

On any forum there are often articles that garner less
response than others simply because the questions are ill
stated, the article is awkwardly formatted, or any number of
similar limiting factors.

Yes, if the poster is unable to make sense in his post, it will ‘garner
less response.’ I’m not talking about not making sense. I’m talking
about top-posting. It does not inherently ‘make less sense’, no matter
what you think. For the majority of the people here, it is trivial to
read the post prior to the response. Any half-arse attempt at a post
will make sense with little or no context. Only if the poster
deliberately posts only an answer with no context whatsoever is there a
problem.

68

unknown wrote:

William C. [email protected] wrote:

Only when taken out of context. You shouldn’t split my paragraphs and
try to make each sentence an entire argument by itself.

This is typical of your entire article. Nothing was out of
context, and no attempt to make each sentence stand alone.

If you seperate a portion of a statement from the rest of it, you have
taken it out of context. You can’t dispute that. It’s what it means.
You took a single sentence from a paragraph and responded only to it.

I.e., your discussion appears to be emotional, illogical,
and done for the sake of argument.

I’ll opt out, as it is much the same as tickling trolls.

What!? MINE is? My only contention is that top-posting is not
inherently wrong. Yours is that it is because it confuses some people
and pisses them off. THAT is the emotional argument. ‘Some people’ are
not ‘all people.’ Without any facts to back that up, ‘some people’
could be 2 in a billion or 2 in 3. We don’t know. I could easily as
say that bottom posting confuses some people because we’ve had people in
this very thread say so.

As I said before, stalemate.

69

William C. [email protected] wrote:

You took a single sentence from a paragraph and responded only to it.
That is a dishonest statement.

I.e., your discussion appears to be emotional, illogical,
and done for the sake of argument.

I’ll opt out, as it is much the same as tickling trolls.

What!? MINE is? My only contention is that top-posting is not
inherently wrong. Yours is that it is because it confuses some people
and pisses them off.

More dishonesty. I’ve never said any such thing.

THAT is the emotional argument. ‘Some people’ are
not ‘all people.’ Without any facts to back that up, ‘some people’
could be 2 in a billion or 2 in 3. We don’t know. I could easily as
say that bottom posting confuses some people because we’ve had people in
this very thread say so.

PLONK

70

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:51:41PM +0900, William C. wrote:

‘Speaking for others’ means you are stating how they feel, not what they
have done. Instead, I was noting the tendency for people in this thread
to assume everyone else was like them. Usenet posters assumed they were
the largest group, List posters and Web posters did the same thing.
Only 1 of those groups can be right, and I haven’t seen statistics to
back any of them up. Everyone also assumes that their posting
preference is best for everyone, or at least ‘least harmful’ for
everyone.

Actually, at least three people haven’t just assumed everyone else was
like them: Jamal, me, and someone who favors top-posting (I don’t recall
exactly who that was). Jamal’s obvious: he spoke for himself as a blind
list user. I specifically identified different groups who use this
venue via differing interfaces and, in fact, mistakenly spoke of the
usenet users as though comp.lang.ruby was here “first”, being a mailing
list user myself, and talked about the effects of top-, bottom-, and
inline-posting as regards the sort of technical discussion that happens
here. Whoever it is that I’m recalling from amongst the top-posting
advocates pretty much just said “I don’t give a damn what anyone else
likes, this is what I prefer, and if the list didn’t have specific rules
about top-posting you could all just screw yourselves.” That, of
course, is an exaggerated paraphrase, but that’s the message that was
conveyed.

Others may also have not just assumed everyone else was like them. I
haven’t been keeping score. These are three examples that leap
immediately to mind, however.

In any case, if I didn’t think top-posting interfered with clear
communication for the type of email activities of which I’m a part
(technical discussions, et cetera), I wouldn’t have any problem with it.
I don’t know for sure, but the way you phrased your statement about what
is “least harmful”, it sounds like you’re saying we all just pick a
preference and defend it as “least harmful”, whereas I learned to prefer
bottom/inline posting specifically because, from my experience and some
thought about the matter, it seems “least harmful”.

Back on the polite issue, I will agree that posting contrary to the
groups wishes is impolite. But when the group’s wishes (the world’s
wishes) are unknown, it is not impolite to post in a manner that does
not bother you. I will continue to only bottom-post here and top and
bottom post as I see the need to everyone else.

My argument stands: Top-posting is not inherently impolite or
incorrect. It deepnds on where you are doing it.

. . . and my point, in a nutshell, is that when circumstances,
preferences, and so on are unknown, bottom/inline posting seems most
courteous and most conducive to clear communication.

. . . and I seem to like words starting with C when I say that, which is
not an impression I contradict in my signature block. How odd.

71

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 07:46:04PM +0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Please don’t pretend that either the forum or Usenet is prime here.

Once you gateway it to Usenet, that is prime. There are
instantly millions of potential readers, plus it is archived
and will be read by people decades from today. Usenet eclipses
anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
regardless of how it all began.

I . . . don’t agree. The mailing list, too, is archived – and there
are a great many people subscribed through the mailing list. It’s
possible usenet may bring more readers to this venue, but it also may
not. Yes, millions of potential readers, just like the mailing list and
web forum provide millions of potential readers. The way things are
going in terms of Internet usage, usenet numbers are likely to decrease
relative to mailing list numbers (and what web forum numbers will do is
probably something of a mystery for this venue, though considering the
reduced necessary personal investment in discussion as compared with the
mailing list it seems like a second-class citizen by definition).

Usenet may experience a resurgence of popularity at some point, but if
we’re to make assumptions based on current and recent trends, I’d say
that planning for the future would probably require planning more for
the mailing list than anything else. At the very least, I’d say that
considering the newsgroup interface primary to the detriment of any
other interface just because it’s usenet is probably a suboptimal
approach at best.

not effectively available. Usually it is impossible to determine
even which article is being responded to, much less which part of the
article the comment applies to.

That simply is not effective communications.

. . . and that’s a very good point that hadn’t occurred to me.

72

William C. [email protected] wrote:

You seem willing to make just about any damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means…

That is trivially false.

Only when taken out of context. You shouldn’t split my paragraphs and
try to make each sentence an entire argument by itself.

This is typical of your entire article. Nothing was out of
context, and no attempt to make each sentence stand alone.

I.e., your discussion appears to be emotional, illogical,
and done for the sake of argument.

I’ll opt out, as it is much the same as tickling trolls.

73

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 08:30:35PM +0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Jeff P. [email protected] wrote:

Isn’t the root of the disagreement the fact that some of us only use the
web portal and others choose to get the email version of the the list?

It isn’t the difference between web and email, it is a different
presentation philosophy. The same philosophy can be applied
to either web or email based deliver mechanisms. It also happens
that each philosophy targets a particular style of discussion.

Actually, I’ve been thinking about this . . . and based on my own
experience, when quoting happens in a web forum, it’s “always” at the
top – thus providing de facto bottom-posting. Posting above the quote
seems an absurd possibility at best in a web forum (and yes, I’ve been
involved in a LOT of web forum discussion). The danger with a
multi-interface venue like this, with regard to web forums, seems to be
the potential and likelihood for contextless posts in the forum that
might prove less than perfectly clear for those using the mailing list
or newsgroup.

74

quoth the William C.:

Now, everyone keeps going on about ‘if you want an answer, you’ll have
to post in a certain way’. This is not true. I have not seen 1 post on
here that failed to get an answer because someone top-posted. I’ve seen
plenty of ‘don’t top post’ replies, but the majority of them were tagged
onto an answer. If changing the format of your post doesn’t change the
answer, how is the ‘wrong way’ ineffective?

FWIW I am subscribed to around 20 different mailing lists. Some are
usenet
gateways and some are not. The one common thread they all have, is that
as
you mention, a hapless top-poster will soon be chastised and told to not
do
so again. What this means to me is that the issue is beyond a stalemate,
as
you put it in another message, and beyond this specific lists ‘rules’,
but
rather, as The Way Things Should Be Done ™ on a mailing list or
usenet.

Regardless of whether or not your hypothetical top-poster may get a
response,
it seems to me good form to use the medium in the manner that most
expect you
to. When in Rome ans all…

Wasn’t there a RFC or a usenet ‘netiquette’ document or something which
speaks
to this issue?

-d

75

“William C.” [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]…

majority of the long-time members. That is not at debate.
Of course. My apologies for logging the dead horse…

But again, the OP asked in general, and in general, I say it’s a
stalemate. Neither side is ‘right or wrong’, ‘polite or impolite’,
‘confusing or clear’, or any pair of opposites assuming the person
posting the message knows how to get his/her point across.

If by "in general" you mean "with no context to the situation" then

yes. It’s neither an issue of politeness nor righteousness. Then
again,
without context, it’s not a particularly interesting or useful question,
so
I doubt that’s how it was intended. Perhaps you’re right about the “we
assume everyone is like us” syndrome since, after reading the original
post, it looks to me like they’re asking “what is top posting” in the
context of usenet when, for all I know, they asked this in the mailing
list
or the web forum. I don’t know about those other mediums but I
certainly
know the protocol for usenet and responded accordingly. Do those other
mediums have similar protocols?
I’m actually on a few web forums (though not the ruby one) and no
one
top-posts despite there being no rule or protocol about it. It’s just
not
something people naturally do.
I have never been on a mailing list…

Only 1 of those groups can be right, and I haven’t seen statistics to
back any of them up. Everyone also assumes that their posting
preference is best for everyone, or at least ‘least harmful’ for
everyone.

I'd be surprised if usenet posters actually thought they were the

largest group. Usenet has become an esoteric medium and, thus, the
usenet
population has become rather small, at least in comparison. Ask the
random
man on the street if they know what e-mail or the WWW is and they will
say
something along the lines of “of course.” Ask them what usenet is, or
what
newsgroups are, and they will give you a puzzled look…
I don’t know if people assume their posting preferences are best for
everyone, either. Personally, I happen to know that my quotes don’t
print
well on the web forum and I lament that but I’m reticent to do anything
about it until I understand exactly why they don’t work out there…

Back on the polite issue, I will agree that posting contrary to the
groups wishes is impolite. But when the group’s wishes (the world’s
wishes) are unknown, it is not impolite to post in a manner that does
not bother you. I will continue to only bottom-post here and top and
bottom post as I see the need to everyone else.

Well, this has become a semantic argument and I'm sure neither of us

are interested in that. Is it rude of me to take things without asking
if
I don’t know that it’s rude?

My argument stands: Top-posting is not inherently impolite or
incorrect. It deepnds on where you are doing it.

Of course... so much so that it doesn't bear saying...
76

Hi –

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, darren kirby wrote:

gateways and some are not. The one common thread they all have, is that as
to this issue?
I don’t mean to pounce on you, Darren – I just want to ask everyone
in this thread if they could please move it off the Ruby mailing list
(forum, newsgroup, whatever).

Thanks.

David

77

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 04:00:30AM +0900, Just Another Victim of the
Ambient M. wrote:

without context, it’s not a particularly interesting or useful question, so
I have never been on a mailing list…
It varies from list to list (having been on many). In general, in
regards to top/bottom/inline posting, lists tend to either have a “no
top-posting” rule or no rules about it at all. Those that have no rules
about it at all tend to occasionally develop complications where a
discussion will get very involved with lots of inline posting, and
someone comes along to start top-posting, completely screwing up the
flow of the conversation. On the other side of the coin, with lists
that have “no top-posting” rules, things tend to proceed smoothly until
someone new to the list (or simply stubborn) top-posts, at which point
that person may or may not be chastised overly harshly for the error.
This might produce any number of outcomes, including never posting to
the list again, a flamewar, apology and compliance, or a discussion like
this.

78

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:03:16AM +0900, darren kirby wrote:

Wasn’t there a RFC or a usenet ‘netiquette’ document or something which speaks
to this issue?

RFC 1855
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

  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. [. . .] Giving

context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Jargon Wiki (evolving Jargon File)
http://ursine.ca/Top-post

  1. (common) To put the newly-added portion of an email or
  Usenet response before the quoted part, as opposed to the more
  logical sequence of quoted portion first with original
  following.

  Usage notes

    The problem with this practice is neatly summed up by the
    following FAQ entry:

    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

    This term is generally used pejoratively with the implication
    that the offending person is a newbie, a Microsoft addict
    (Microsoft mail tools produce a similar format by default), or
    simply a common-and-garden-variety idiot.

I also seem to recall a Usenet-specific “official” etiquette document
that addressed the matter, but as a non-newsgroup type myself, I don’t
know where it’s hiding.

79

Chad P. wrote:

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:03:16AM +0900, darren kirby wrote:
Jargon Wiki (evolving Jargon File)
http://ursine.ca/Top-post
… or
simply a common-and-garden-variety idiot.

The real problem here is that there is no general agreement over which
is right. Forum people, like myself, are annoyed by bottom posting
(especially with a long quote), and other people are annoyed by top
posting. It’s not a matter of ettiquite, since there isn’t any global
agreement that one way is “good” and the other is “bad”.

I’m niether rude nor a common-and-garden-variety idiot; merely a forum
user.

Me thinks this issue will not go away as long as there are multiple
avenues of accessing this cornucopia of knowledge and wisdom.

It could be solved programatically I suppose. Just create separate text
entry boxes for the quote and the new content, and then place them
“backwards” in the email that goes out to the mailing list.

Frankly I find the nuisance of this topic to be slight in comparison to
the value of the knowledge to be found here.

jp

80

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:16:09AM +0900, [email protected] wrote:

I don’t mean to pounce on you, Darren – I just want to ask everyone
in this thread if they could please move it off the Ruby mailing list
(forum, newsgroup, whatever).

Er, whoops, I posted replies to other subthreads before I saw this. Mea
culpa.