Top Quoting?

Sort of off-topic and don’t mean to complain, but many on this list
use top quoting. That works ok if you don’t quote the whole previous
thread. However, I’m finding that scrolling forever to locate the
reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What’s the rationale for
top-quoting?

Thx.

+1

On Oct 15, 2007, at 2:38 PM, s.ross wrote:

http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
-1

Good point. Reminds me of this classic:

A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On 10/15/07, Jonathan L. [email protected] wrote:

Thx.
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On 10/15/2007 5:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:

thread. However, I’m finding that scrolling forever to locate the
reply on longer threads is getting tedious. What’s the rationale for
top-quoting?

Yeah… this is an age-old Internet debate, of course, but I think the
problem is that (a) we’re all top-quoting but (b) we’re never trimming,
not even the mailing-list footer.

If you’re gonna top-quote/bottom-post - and that is my personal favorite
for exactly the reasons demonstrated in the A&Q above - you gotta trim.

Also, you should never mix styles in a single thread, the way this post
does… :slight_smile:

Part of the problem may be that the rspec footer doesn’t follow .sig
rules; instead of the long line, it should use dash-dash-space. In my
incredibly scientific test, Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 on Windows will
automagically trim .sigs that follow the rule, and therefore, so will
all clients anywhere.

Jay


This is a sig that will get trimmed, by Thunderbird, at least.
Drink Coca-Cola!

On 10/15/07, Jay L. removed_[email protected] wrote:

use top quoting. That works ok if you don’t quote the whole previous

Also, you should never mix styles in a single thread, the way this post
does… :slight_smile:

Part of the problem may be that the rspec footer doesn’t follow .sig
rules; instead of the long line, it should use dash-dash-space. In my
incredibly scientific test, Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 on Windows will
automagically trim .sigs that follow the rule, and therefore, so will
all clients anywhere.

I think one problem is that GMail encourages you to top-post. Not
everybody uses gmail of course, but a lot of devs do. I’m probably
guilty of not trimming enough because GMail folds that stuff out of
the way for me.

Personally, I’d prefer it if people don’t top-post but I don’t care
too too much. I just stick with whatever approach has already been
adopted in a thread. That’s probably the pacifist in me.

Pat

Wait, actually it looks like OP is asking about top-quoting, and
you’re responding about top-posting. Top-posting is what I’m doing
right now, and apparently is what OP would prefer?

I’m so confused now (especially after Shane’s sideposting prank!).

Not to beat an already beaten horse, but…
I see email more as a dynamic information flow than a static page,
especially active conversations like this,
so I like to see the current response at the top,
immediately accessible, and visible in my preview pane.
Or, maybe I should look for a mail reader that automatically
scrolls to the bottom of the message when you click on it
:slight_smile:

Just wondering …

                                    On 10/16/07, Pat M.

removed_email_addr[email protected] wrote:
> Personally, I’d prefer it if
people don’t top-post but I don’t care
sideposting > too too much. I just stick with
whatever approach has already been
> adopted in a thread. That’s
probably the pacifist in me.
>

Sorry … could not resist trying :slight_smile:

On 10/15/07, Pat M. [email protected] wrote:

I think one problem is that GMail encourages you to top-post. Not
everybody uses gmail of course, but a lot of devs do. I’m probably
guilty of not trimming enough because GMail folds that stuff out of
the way for me.

I guess is not quite right. Top-posting is laziness, not mail software
issue :wink:

I use Gmail and take the time to find where I should slice the
previous email and inject my reply there, to keep everyone reading in
context.

Personally, I’d prefer it if people don’t top-post but I don’t care
too too much. I just stick with whatever approach has already been
adopted in a thread. That’s probably the pacifist in me.

With 5+ ppl involved on a thread, top-posting get messy, and sometimes
is impossible to follow who replied to what part of the previous or
what email before that…

Take some time look for it, but anyone could do it – I personally
dislike this method :stuck_out_tongue:


Luis L.
Multimedia systems

Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
is worthwhile.
Vince Lombardi

El 16/10/2007, a las 0:58, Jay L. [email protected]
escribió:

Yeah… this is an age-old Internet debate, of course, but I think the
problem is that (a) we’re all top-quoting but (b) we’re never
trimming,
not even the mailing-list footer.

If you’re gonna top-quote/bottom-post - and that is my personal
favorite
for exactly the reasons demonstrated in the A&Q above - you gotta
trim.

Some prefer top-posting, others bottom-posting (I fall into this
latter group), but I think that whichever way people decide to go,
they would do us all a great service by trimming down the quoted
section to only the relevant parts.

This is especially true in cases where the reply might be two or
three lines long, and the untrimmed quoted message stretches on for
screenfuls.

Our mail clients (and web interfaces) already provide us with
threaded interfaces for going back and looking at the older parts of
a conversation; it’s not necessary to have the entire history of the
conversation embedded in every single reply.

Cheers,
Wincent

This is especially true in cases where the reply might be two or
three lines long, and the untrimmed quoted message stretches on for
screenfuls.

I totally agree, in fact I let most of these conversations just pass
by because it’s too much work to sift through all the nested quotes.
I’d definitely participate more if things were trimmed sensibly.

Nate

On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Nathan S. wrote:

This is especially true in cases where the reply might be two or
three lines long, and the untrimmed quoted message stretches on for
screenfuls.

I totally agree, in fact I let most of these conversations just pass
by because it’s too much work to sift through all the nested quotes.
I’d definitely participate more if things were trimmed sensibly.

Nate


Bingo! And (BTW) I’m the OP. I don’t care whether you top-post or
bottom-post. I try to pare the quoted email to the relevant, assuming
that people either have read or have access to more context, should
they need it. What got me started was the long thread on “Step
matchers” (and I don’t mean to single anyone out – it just happens
to be a thread I gave up on rather recently because of this).

I just thought I would raise the issue and see if anyone had any
thoughts about it. From what I read it’s:

  • Bottom post or interleave
  • Trim quoted mail to provide quoted context but not extraneous
  • Keep posts DRY :slight_smile:

Yes?

Steve

On 10/15/07, Wincent C. [email protected] wrote:

Some prefer top-posting, others bottom-posting (I fall into this
latter group), but I think that whichever way people decide to go,
they would do us all a great service by trimming down the quoted
section to only the relevant parts.

Totally agree. I recognize that I’ve not been doing this but I’ll try
to do so from now on.

Cheers,
David

Yes?

What was the question, again?

/g

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs