Newsgroup Etiquette
 

Can we pls keep on topic within a thread?

I'm up for reading about JP's EDL experiment and Suspension recalls but
dont want that intertwined with newsgroup etiquette.

Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...

Personally I remove all reply references by default so that only my
message shows. I use Mozilla Thunderbird and set newsgroup to View
Threads With Unread Only. That way I guess 90+% of server space is not
duplication (if its stored that way...?), i can refer to the original
thread and can flick through the replies without searching top or bottom
or inbetween for the new bits.

That i find convenient, not sure if that's what some people are
referring to as lazy.

If missing out the reply references is difficult for the way others read
my posts I'll add them back in.

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:02 +0100, charles blassberg
<blassberg@email.com> wrote:

>Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...

The troule with top-posting is that you read your message and then
what you are replying to. It is much easier on the reader to first
read the post your are replying to and then your added thoughts.

FWIW, it *is* considered poor netiquette to top post.

Dave

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:02 +0100, charles blassberg
<blassberg@email.com> wrote:

>Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...

The troule with top-posting is that you read your message and then
what you are replying to. It is much easier on the reader to first
read the post your are replying to and then your added thoughts.

FWIW, it *is* considered poor netiquette to top post.

Dave

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:02 +0100, charles blassberg
<blassberg@email.com> wrote:

>Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...

The troule with top-posting is that you read your message and then
what you are replying to. It is much easier on the reader to first
read the post your are replying to and then your added thoughts.

FWIW, it *is* considered poor netiquette to top post.

Dave

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:58:00 -0400, Dave LaCourse
<dplacourse@pirateaol.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:02 +0100, charles blassberg
><blassberg@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...
>
>The troule with top-posting is that you read your message and then
>what you are replying to.

Generally speaking you read the message that's being responded to in
its original place in the thread, where it was originally posted to,
rather than in whatever the respondent chooses to quote of it.


> It is much easier on the reader to first read the post your are
> replying to and then your added thoughts.

In this case, when reading a thead, the quote you are presented with
is simply a quote of what you've only just read in the post above.
Most users wouldn't have to read this again and instead are faced with
having to scroll past it just to find the respondent's new comments.
Do this for a number of iterations and it soon gets irritating.


> FWIW, it *is* considered poor netiquette to top post.

Times have changed, they really have. It's only considered poor
netiquette by those who don't like it. Everyone else just uses it and
gets on with it.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:58:00 -0400, Dave LaCourse
<dplacourse@pirateaol.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:02 +0100, charles blassberg
><blassberg@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...
>
>The troule with top-posting is that you read your message and then
>what you are replying to.

Generally speaking you read the message that's being responded to in
its original place in the thread, where it was originally posted to,
rather than in whatever the respondent chooses to quote of it.


> It is much easier on the reader to first read the post your are
> replying to and then your added thoughts.

In this case, when reading a thead, the quote you are presented with
is simply a quote of what you've only just read in the post above.
Most users wouldn't have to read this again and instead are faced with
having to scroll past it just to find the respondent's new comments.
Do this for a number of iterations and it soon gets irritating.


> FWIW, it *is* considered poor netiquette to top post.

Times have changed, they really have. It's only considered poor
netiquette by those who don't like it. Everyone else just uses it and
gets on with it.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:58:00 -0400, Dave LaCourse
<dplacourse@pirateaol.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:29:02 +0100, charles blassberg
><blassberg@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with top-posting...
>
>The troule with top-posting is that you read your message and then
>what you are replying to.

Generally speaking you read the message that's being responded to in
its original place in the thread, where it was originally posted to,
rather than in whatever the respondent chooses to quote of it.


> It is much easier on the reader to first read the post your are
> replying to and then your added thoughts.

In this case, when reading a thead, the quote you are presented with
is simply a quote of what you've only just read in the post above.
Most users wouldn't have to read this again and instead are faced with
having to scroll past it just to find the respondent's new comments.
Do this for a number of iterations and it soon gets irritating.


> FWIW, it *is* considered poor netiquette to top post.

Times have changed, they really have. It's only considered poor
netiquette by those who don't like it. Everyone else just uses it and
gets on with it.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

What he said.



Andy Turner wrote:

> Times have changed, they really have. It's only considered poor
> netiquette by those who don't like it. Everyone else just uses it and
> gets on with it.
>
>
>
> andyt
>

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

What he said.



Andy Turner wrote:

> Times have changed, they really have. It's only considered poor
> netiquette by those who don't like it. Everyone else just uses it and
> gets on with it.
>
>
>
> andyt
>

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

What he said.



Andy Turner wrote:

> Times have changed, they really have. It's only considered poor
> netiquette by those who don't like it. Everyone else just uses it and
> gets on with it.
>
>
>
> andyt
>