On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 14:24 -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
But what about a post that contributes only a single block of text? Published guidelines on posting seem to disregard the existence of the previous post - their instruction is to first read the quoted text, then read the contributed text. I find this bothersome - it forces me to "get past" the quoted text before I can find out what __THIS__ post has to say. It is this "scroll that message" that top posting (of a single block) frees me from having to go through.
This is why bottom posting should never be used alone. Pure bottom posting is just as bad as top posting. The method that makes sense to me is a combination of bottom posting and logical editing (cutting out stuff that is not important) Another thing is that on an active thread that single block of text will not stay single for long, because if someone then replies to your top-posted reply, the single block suddenly find itself in the middle of things, screwing up the flow. It will only work if the first block does not include something that is of relevance to the third poster. How many mails have you seen where the third and fourth person to respond on a thread relates to both previous levels in the thread.
Why don't I *always* want to view that quote from the previous post? Because its text was typically posted today or yesterday, and I still remember what it said. Besides, the mail/news software I use keeps msgs (both read and unread) in sequence within threads -- so it is trivial for me to go back and read the whole previous post, if I wish.
This method works if you read mail as they arrive (or close to it) and if you can manage to keep track of all the threads you are following in your mind. This also works in conversational or social lists where the mail does not include technical or business data that is still worth something in 2 years. I have also found that in many cases I only start to follow a thread somewhere in the middle (like this one). I get waaay too much mail to read each one, so i scan the subjects and spot-read a few to see if there are something interesting in. In such cases it makes it very difficult to pick up the thread if it is not logically written. Have you tried to search mailing list archives for some solution and then try and follow a top-posted thread, or one that does not contain a reference to what is answered on. It is very frustrating. Same with business related mails. I have had to go through my personal archives on many occasions to search for mails that were writen a few years ago. Then you need to scroll up and down, up and down to try and follow the conversation. What makes is worse is when it is lengthy responses that refer to previous responses. I scroll down to see what they are referring to and then I need to search back to the point I was reading. - horrible waste of time. To me it is plain logical. I normally don't wear my pants on my head as it does not make a lot of sense to do it in the long run. It might be comfortable and quite funny while I am in the house, but as soon as I go outside, my butt start to freeze and then I have to try and get my pants off my head an onto my butt while trying to get to the car. If I have put my pants on the way that makes sense in the first place, then I would not have trouble getting to work on time... It is logical. It makes sense. (Most of the time anyway) -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.co.za ~ "Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We assimilated the Pooh!" ~