OK, OK, I know the fashion is to blast people with "please don't top post" messages -- it seems to have invaded all the mailing lists I'm on. But I don't get it. Most of us have threaded mail readers these days, so is it so hard to follow a thread? Maybe I'm a weirdo, but it is FAR more common for me to have been following a thread, and want to know what the latest comment is, then drop into the end of a long thread, and want to see the entire discussion in the most recent post. So why make me scroll WAY THE HECK down literally hundreds of lines to find your one: "+1" give me a break! Even if you have something significant and pithy to say, I still don't want to scroll through all that junk, and layers of 10+ >>>>>>>>>>> to find out the new stuff. (take a look at a the "Raveling, reshape order ..." thread to see what I mean. So, while I agree blind top posting is less than Ideal, I actually like it a bit better than blind bottom posting. Best of all is intelligent editing of the thread so far -- edit it down to the key points you are commenting on, and intersperse your comments. That way your email stands on its own as meaningful, but there is not a big pile of left over crap to wade through to read your fabulous pithy opinions.... OK, I've had my rant, carry on! -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
Best of all is intelligent editing of the thread so far -- edit it down to the key points you are commenting on, and intersperse your comments. That way your email stands on its own as meaningful, but there is not a big pile of left over crap to wade through to read your fabulous pithy opinions....
Traditionally this is what the phrase "bottom posting" meant, as a term of art, and is the key reason why those old "netiquette" guides recommend it. I guess the unexpressed nuances of such definitions get lost over time as people encounter them without the relevant context, though -- sort of like how the full in-context meaning of order= gets lost ;-). -n
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
Best of all is intelligent editing of the thread so far ... Traditionally this is what the phrase "bottom posting" meant, as a term of art, and is the key reason why those old "netiquette" guides recommend it.
Well, I'm not sure I've seen much use of the term "bottom posting" -- I've seen a lot of "don't top-post", with generally not recommendation as to what to do instead. but I do see a lot of naive bottom posting.... -Chris oh wait, I was supposed to be done ranting.... -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
I swear by a mouse with an unlockable scroll wheel. Scroll to your heart's content! http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-G500-Programmable-Gaming-Mouse/dp/B002J9GDXI Also, gmail "bottom-posts" by default. It's transparent to gmail users. I'd imagine they are some of the biggest offenders. Doug
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Doug Coleman <doug.coleman@gmail.com> wrote:
I swear by a mouse with an unlockable scroll wheel. Scroll to your heart's content!
http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-G500-Programmable-Gaming-Mouse/dp/B002J9GDXI
Also, gmail "bottom-posts" by default. It's transparent to gmail users. I'd imagine they are some of the biggest offenders.
gmail also doesn't show the old messages, only the most recent reply, so there is no scrolling for me (most of the time). The main advantage of inline and bottom posting for me is when I reread a thread, especially long ones, after several years. It's much easier to follow than reading from bottom to top without inline context. (R mailing lists) Josef
Doug
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Doug Coleman <doug.coleman@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, gmail "bottom-posts" by default. It's transparent to gmail users. I'd imagine they are some of the biggest offenders.
Not with my configuration -- which I don't hink I changed -- it's top posting by default for me. however, gmail does hide much of the "quoted" content, so this may not bug people as much -- in fact, for me, with gmail, it's often not to bad to read, but then I go to reply and find a huge pile of quoted material that gmail hid from me. but I've got it set to plain text -- not sure how that effects things... -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Doug Coleman <doug.coleman@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, gmail "bottom-posts" by default. It's transparent to gmail users. I'd imagine they are some of the biggest offenders.
Interesting. Mine go to the top by default and I always have to expand the quoted text, trim down as necessary, and then reply below the relevant bits. A quick gander at gmail's setting doesn't offer anything obvious. I'll dig deeper later.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Colin J. Williams <cjwilliams43@gmail.com>wrote:
On 11/04/2013 7:20 PM, Paul Hobson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Doug Coleman <doug.coleman@gmail.com>wrote:
Also, gmail "bottom-posts" by default. It's transparent to gmail users. I'd imagine they are some of the biggest offenders.
Interesting. Mine go to the top by default and I always have to expand the quoted text, trim down as necessary, and then reply below the relevant bits. A quick gander at gmail's setting doesn't offer anything obvious. I'll dig deeper later.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing listNumPy-Discussion@scipy.orghttp://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Bottom posting seems to be the accepted Usenet standard.
I don't care, can't someone can make a decision, so that we all do the same thing?
Please develop a rationale or toss a coin and let us know. Numpy needs a BDFL (or a shorter term, if you wish).
It's always been bottom posting. Chuck
On 12.04.2013, at 2:14AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Colin J. Williams <cjwilliams43@gmail.com> wrote: On 11/04/2013 7:20 PM, Paul Hobson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Doug Coleman <doug.coleman@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, gmail "bottom-posts" by default. It's transparent to gmail users. I'd imagine they are some of the biggest offenders.
Interesting. Mine go to the top by default and I always have to expand the quoted text, trim down as necessary, and then reply below the relevant bits. A quick gander at gmail's setting doesn't offer anything obvious. I'll dig deeper later.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion Bottom posting seems to be the accepted Usenet standard.
I don't care, can't someone can make a decision, so that we all do the same thing?
Please develop a rationale or toss a coin and let us know. Numpy needs a BDFL (or a shorter term, if you wish).
It's always been bottom posting.
In German this kind of faux pas is usually labelled "TOFU" for "text on top, full quote underneath", and I think it has been a bit overlooked so far that the "full quote" part probably is the bigger problem. IOW a call to try and trim the OP more rigourously should help a lot, and I'd think most people then can agree on bottom posting (and I know the issue with mail clients doing that automatically - the thread in question looks quite readable in Mountain Lion's Mail.app, but a nightmare on Snow Leopard!). Cheers, Derek
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Derek Homeier <derek@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
In German this kind of faux pas is usually labelled "TOFU" for "text on top, full quote underneath", and I think it has been a bit overlooked so far that the "full quote" part probably is the bigger problem.
Exactly -- my original title "stop bottom posting" was a lame attempt to be a bit ironically humorous..
IOW a call to try and trim the OP more rigourously should help a lot, and I'd think most people then can agree on bottom posting
Though I'd still argue that I'd prefer top posting to bottom posting in the situation of a small comment added to a big thread. gmail is pretty good at hiding the old stuff, so it's getting less annoying, but when i go to add a comment myself, and find this huge pile of old junk to sort through and delete -- it's really annoying.
...the issue with mail clients doing that automatically - the thread in question looks quite readable in Mountain Lion's Mail.app, but a nightmare on Snow Leopard!).
Exactly -- email clients are maybe getting too smart for us -- if it looks good in yours, it may not look good in mine. Interesting that this note itself had not a lot, but still too much, worthless junk left over from the previous post... Maybe we need a short-hand for "clean up the previous parts of the thread to show only what you need to make your post relevant and clear" Paul Ivanof wrote:
... But I just came across a wonderfully short signature from Rick Moen, and thought I'd pass it along:
Cheers, A: Yes. Rick Moen > Q: Are you sure? rick@linuxmafia >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. .com McQ! (4x80) >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
This is cute, and makes a good point, but misses the bigger issue: most interesting technical threads are not a series of linear, simple one-liners. Bottom posting is obviously the way to go for that. They are long, with multiple points, and comments on the middle parts, not just the end, and different people all commenting on the same post. It simply does not end up a neat linear conversation anyway. niether pure bottom posting nor pure top posting works well. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
On 12.04.2013, at 6:01PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
Maybe we need a short-hand for "clean up the previous parts of the thread to show only what you need to make your post relevant and clear"
+1
Paul Ivanof wrote:
... But I just came across a wonderfully short signature from Rick Moen, and thought I'd pass it along:
Cheers, A: Yes. Rick Moen > Q: Are you sure? rick@linuxmafia >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. .com McQ! (4x80) >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
This is cute, and makes a good point, but misses the bigger issue: most interesting technical threads are not a series of linear, simple one-liners. Bottom posting is obviously the way to go for that. They are long, with multiple points, and comments on the middle parts, not just the end, and different people all commenting on the same post. It simply does not end up a neat linear conversation anyway. niether pure bottom posting nor pure top posting works well.
Absolutely, I did not intend to suggest posting everything at the bottom of one monolithic quote (even if shortened), but following the corresponding sub-threads of the conversation (and tried to give a better example this time ;-). Cheers, Derek
Paul Ivanov wrote:
... But I just came across a wonderfully short signature from Rick Moen, and thought I'd pass it along:
Cheers, A: Yes. Rick Moen > Q: Are you sure? rick@linuxmafia >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. .com McQ! (4x80) >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
This is cute, and makes a good point, but misses the bigger issue: most interesting technical threads are not a series of linear, simple one-liners. Bottom posting is obviously the way to go for that. They are long, with multiple points, and comments on the middle parts, not just the end, and different people all commenting on the same post. It simply does not end up a neat linear conversation anyway. niether pure bottom posting nor pure top posting works well.
Full agreed, again, so I'm a little puzzled why you say it misses the point, since I started off that post agreeing with you:
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal, on 2013-04-04 09:01, wrote:
Which is why I advocate interspersed posting.
This. (with heavy snipping).
My inclusion of Rick's signature was intended to just be cute, just as you perceived it. best, -- Paul Ivanov 314 address only used for lists, off-list direct email at: http://pirsquared.org | GPG/PGP key id: 0x0F3E28F7
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Colin J. Williams <cjwilliams43@gmail.com> wrote:
PS My last posting used the word Anaconda. It was squelched.
What posting are you referring to? What do you mean by "squelched"? Is there a post of yours that has not made it to the list yet? I can have the admin check the queue for messages being held up. Are you referring to your question about Canopy and Anaconda? It was not "squelched" in any sense of the word that I understand. You were pointed to more appropriate fora that will actually have a chance of answering your question accurately. The Canopy support team does not monitor this list for questions about Canopy's roadmap (nor should it). When matplotlib questions get asked here, I consistently point people to the matplotlib-users list. When people ask numpy questions on python-list, I redirect them here. While one certainly may ask general "numpy ecosystem" questions here as a starting point, one must expect to be pointed to better resources when they exist and to follow up there. -- Robert Kern
On 04/04/2013 12:00 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:
OK, OK, I know the fashion is to blast people with "please don't top post" messages -- it seems to have invaded all the mailing lists I'm on.
But I don't get it.
Most of us have threaded mail readers these days, so is it so hard to follow a thread?
Fine if you say A, then I say B, then you say C, and so on. As in "where should we go for lunch on Friday". But technical discussions are often not like that -- it's more you say A, B, C, then in response I say D, E, F. Then it helps A LOT if there's an easy convention for recording that D is in response to A, E in response to B, and F in response to C. With top-posting I'm forced to write "With respect to what you write about the GIL issues, ...". Bleh. In fact, in deep technical threads it's very difficult for me to write top-posting at all, which is why I get so irritated when people switch to it. Dag Sverre
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljebotn@astro.uio.no> wrote:
With top-posting I'm forced to write "With respect to what you write about the GIL issues, ...". Bleh. In fact, in deep technical threads it's very difficult for me to write top-posting at all, which is why I get so irritated when people switch to it.
well, raw top posting is pretty painful, I agree, though I personally prefer it over raw bottom posting, particularly for really short, simple comments. And if you are adding to a deep technical thread, raw bottom posting is no better, you still would need to write: "With respect to what you write about the GIL issues, ..." Which is why I advocate interspersed posting. It comes down to: please take some thought to compose your post in a way that is suited to the thread and what you are writing, rather than simply use whatever your mail or news reader makes easy without thinking about it. Ideally, for each person that writes a post, a lot of people are reading it -- so be respectful of the readers' time, more than your own. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote: [...]
Which is why I advocate interspersed posting.
It comes down to: please take some thought to compose your post in a way that is suited to the thread and what you are writing, rather than simply use whatever your mail or news reader makes easy without thinking about it.
Ideally, for each person that writes a post, a lot of people are reading it -- so be respectful of the readers' time, more than your own.
Since I read that idea somewhere else, that is what I suggest too. But it seam more people tell something different, and I suppose they never thaugh of this. I never heard argument again this. Fred
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal, on 2013-04-04 09:01, wrote:
Which is why I advocate interspersed posting.
This. (with heavy snipping). ... But I just came across a wonderfully short signature from Rick Moen, and thought I'd pass it along: Cheers, A: Yes. Rick Moen > Q: Are you sure? rick@linuxmafia >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. .com McQ! (4x80) >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? best, -- Paul Ivanov 314 address only used for lists, off-list direct email at: http://pirsquared.org | GPG/PGP key id: 0x0F3E28F7
participants (13)
-
Charles R Harris -
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal -
Colin J. Williams -
Dag Sverre Seljebotn -
Derek Homeier -
Doug Coleman -
Frédéric Bastien -
josef.pktd＠gmail.com -
Nathaniel Smith -
Paul Hobson -
Paul Ivanov -
Robert Kern -
Steve Waterbury