top or bottom

I know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of the
post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If posting on
the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior posts. This
means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is occ. "me too".
Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous messages, please
eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks

--
Gen
http://community.webshots.com/user/Coren920

Thank you, Gen, for mentioning this problem. I expect the reason so many of
us are carrying lots of previous responses is because some are having
troubles receiving all of the rctq posts. That does make reading some
answers very tedious; can't tell who said what or if they said anything.
Quite baffling sometimes. Polly


"Gen" wroteI know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since
there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of
the post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If
posting on the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior
posts. This means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is
occ. "me too". Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous
messages, please eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks

My email application's "Messages With Auto-Preview" starts reading at the
top. So I post at the top.

When I'm in a hurry or have lots of messages to catch up on (like when I
return from 5 days without computer access next week), I'm more likely to
delete the ones with posts at the bottom. The preview feature makes it much
faster for me to move along. I don't need to see the original message first
because I can also thread the messages. I can read all in a thread, and I
sure don't want to be seeing the original message over and over again. That
scrolling to the bottom sometimes takes precious time -- like when I have
hundreds of messages to catch up on.

Kay Ahr in NV
http://community.webshots.com/user/kayahr
to respond to me directly, remove "WESTHI" from the email address


"Gen" wrote in message
...
I know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of the
post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If posting on
the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior posts. This
means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is occ. "me too".
Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous messages, please
eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks

--
Gen
http://community.webshots.com/user/Coren920

"Gen" wrote in message
...
I know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of the
post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If posting on
the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior posts.
This means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is occ. "me
too". Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous messages,
please eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks


Heh, probably not the newbies who do it.... it is a long standing practice,
a usenet 'tradition' so to speak. And, folks have 'good' reasons for each
method.

It all works out to a matter of preference.

Since it can become quite difficult to follow a 'thread' - especially when
there are replies to replies - I personally prefer a BOTTOM post, so that I
can see just what the person who posted was answering or referring to. If
the quotes are numerous, as can happen when two or more folks are replying
to each other, then cutting out some of the conversation - with an
indication that things were 'snipped', can make it easier to follow.

IMO, top posting often means that I have the 'reply' before the original
post - especially as I am prone to browsing some ng's less frequently than
others. Depending on your IP and news reader, a post more than a couple days
old might not even be shown, meaning you would need to use Google or some
other web reader to find the original thread that the 'reply' refers to.

You got me thinking, though. And so I googled a bit and found some opposing
opinions.

For those of you who embrace top posting
://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/

And, from Wikipedia, this interesting set of questions, for use as a
signature
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?

Thanks Polly. I'm one of them. I appreciate the replies at the top with the
previous post under it as that's the only way I see some posters. I'm not
sure what the deal is with the ISP......been this way ever since I found
RCTQ about 11 years ago. It's a Red Letter day if I get 150 posts!

Butterfly (not about to pay extra at this point in time as I really don't
know if it'd make any difference)

"Polly Esther" wrote in message
...
Thank you, Gen, for mentioning this problem. I expect the reason so many
of us are carrying lots of previous responses is because some are having
troubles receiving all of the rctq posts. That does make reading some
answers very tedious; can't tell who said what or if they said anything.
Quite baffling sometimes. Polly


"Gen" wroteI know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since
there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of
the post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If
posting on the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior
posts. This means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is
occ. "me too". Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous
messages, please eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks

hells bells, i'll throw yet another spanner into the works by copy/pasting
the bottom posters to the top and then replying.
i use OE, it is set up to include the whole msg when i reply.
the problem is it puts "replyers name" wrote... at the top for the last
poster and
if they reply at the bottom, the post they are replying to is in the middle,
therefore under the "replyers name" now that is very confusing
so i move their post up to the top under "replyers name" wrote...
gawd, just read thru that and only i'll understand it. i move stuff around
from how it shows up for my reply.

i also remove all email addys and isp info that most folks leave in.
it also really bugs me all to heck when folks reply but do not sign their
name under their post anywhere at all.
i thot (my spelling version) most email readers had a way of including your
choice of signature in the reply each time automatically saves whomever
having to type it each time.
oh oh and how about not 'wrapping' the text but letting it flow waaaaaaay
out across the page ad infinitum. yikes!
hey but that is just me and how i work things out here.
the discussion will go on forever and never be resolved to everyones
satisfaction but i'm willing to add my two centavos just for fun.
cheers,
jeanne

"L" wrote...
Heh, probably not the newbies who do it.... it is a long standing
practice, a usenet 'tradition' so to speak. And, folks have 'good' reasons
for each method.

It all works out to a matter of preference.

Since it can become quite difficult to follow a 'thread' - especially when
there are replies to replies - I personally prefer a BOTTOM post, so that
I can see just what the person who posted was answering or referring to.
If the quotes are numerous, as can happen when two or more folks are
replying to each other, then cutting out some of the conversation - with
an indication that things were 'snipped', can make it easier to follow.

IMO, top posting often means that I have the 'reply' before the original
post - especially as I am prone to browsing some ng's less frequently than
others. Depending on your IP and news reader, a post more than a couple
days old might not even be shown, meaning you would need to use Google or
some other web reader to find the original thread that the 'reply' refers
to.

You got me thinking, though. And so I googled a bit and found some
opposing opinions.

For those of you who embrace top posting
://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/

And, from Wikipedia, this interesting set of questions, for use as a
signature
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?


"Gen" wrote...
I know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of
the post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If
posting on
the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior posts.
This means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is occ. "me
too". Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous messages,
please eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks

Outlook Express automatically starts at the top, so that's why I post at the
top. I wouldn't mind bottom posting if people would snip all the extraneous
stuff, but they don't - so you end up reading some things over and over.
Also, if people would snip the headers and just leave the poster's signature
at the bottom of their post it wouldn't get so jumbled. One ng I post to,
always bottom posts. You have to wade through so much 'stuff' before you
get to the last message, it's ridiculous!

My two cents!

Donna in Idaho


"L" wrote in message
...
"Gen" wrote in message
...
I know we've had this discussion numerous times, but since there are a lot
of newbies, I thought I'd open it up again. There are some that answer
posts by posting on top and others that wait and post at the bottom of
previous posts. Personally, I prefer posting on top, leaving enough of
the post being answered to tell what the answer is referring to. If
posting on
the bottom, some are leaving everything in---often many prior posts.
This means scrolling ALL the way down to see the answer, which is occ. "me
too". Very frustrating. If posting on the bottom of previous messages,
please eliminate some of the earlier ones. Thanks


Heh, probably not the newbies who do it.... it is a long standing
practice, a usenet 'tradition' so to speak. And, folks have 'good' reasons
for each method.

It all works out to a matter of preference.

Since it can become quite difficult to follow a 'thread' - especially when
there are replies to replies - I personally prefer a BOTTOM post, so that
I can see just what the person who posted was answering or referring to.
If the quotes are numerous, as can happen when two or more folks are
replying to each other, then cutting out some of the conversation - with
an indication that things were 'snipped', can make it easier to follow.

IMO, top posting often means that I have the 'reply' before the original
post - especially as I am prone to browsing some ng's less frequently than
others. Depending on your IP and news reader, a post more than a couple
days old might not even be shown, meaning you would need to use Google or
some other web reader to find the original thread that the 'reply' refers
to.

You got me thinking, though. And so I googled a bit and found some
opposing opinions.

For those of you who embrace top posting
://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/

And, from Wikipedia, this interesting set of questions, for use as a
signature
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?

but if you are going to top post, why not just not quote anything at
all, how many people do you think read the stuff you left below you
response? including it made your message about 6 times as long as it
could have been and has my deleting of it caused anyone any problems -
probably not, at least not enough to warrant the continual leaving in of
all previous posts, then if anyone does want to follow the train of
thought in one post, they have to read from the bottom up. The only
point in quoting is to give needed context for the reader, the general
topic of conversation isn't really needed, it's more to attach answers
to specific parts of the post. It isn't really a case of top versus
bottom posting, it's more a case of correct quoting, if you only quote
exactly what is needed, all the complaints about bottom posting become
irrelevant and it become the only logical way to do things.

Cheers
Anne

Anne, we are quilters. We take large pieces of fabric and cut them
up and then stitch them together again. I'm confused at where
logical works with us. LOL
Lots of folks have flaky news servers. I often just include the
previous msg. because that is the only way some folks will see it.
This isn't rocket science here but if I can help someone get a missed
message the mess quoted below for everyone else is easily disregarded.
Logical? Quilters? ; )
Taria

Anne Rogers wrote:
but if you are going to top post, why not just not quote anything at
all, how many people do you think read the stuff you left below you
response? including it made your message about 6 times as long as it
could have been and has my deleting of it caused anyone any problems -
probably not, at least not enough to warrant the continual leaving in of
all previous posts, then if anyone does want to follow the train of
thought in one post, they have to read from the bottom up. The only
point in quoting is to give needed context for the reader, the general
topic of conversation isn't really needed, it's more to attach answers
to specific parts of the post. It isn't really a case of top versus
bottom posting, it's more a case of correct quoting, if you only quote
exactly what is needed, all the complaints about bottom posting become
irrelevant and it become the only logical way to do things.

Cheers
Anne

Jeanne, I have no idea what you said but I always enjoy hearing from you.
=) Polly

"nzlstar*" wrote, in part if they reply at the bottom, the post they are
replying to is in the middle,
therefore under the "replyers name" now that is very confusing
so i move their post up to the top under "replyers name" wrote...
gawd, just read thru that and only i'll understand it. i move stuff around
from how it shows up for my reply.