News Group Use

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Jeff Savage, Oct 26, 2004.

  1. Jeff Savage

    Jeff Savage Guest

    As I sometimes post things on this news group as replies, I was just
    wondering which is the correct way to reply (or do no-one care). Should a
    reply go at the top of the original message or the bottom. One way means
    you get the response without a lot of scrolling, the other means you get the
    story and responses in chronological order.
    Just wonder - NOT WANTING TO START A FIGHT ON PROTOCOL.
    Thanks Jeff
     
    Jeff Savage, Oct 26, 2004
    #1
  2. Jeff Savage

    Boris Mohar Guest

    Bottom is the bottom line. We read left to right ad top do bottom. If
    someone replies to my reply and puts their reply at the top it makes it
    impossible to determine what the thread is. Mouse wit the scroll wheel is
    really cheap.



    Regards,

    Boris Mohar

    Got Knock? - see:
    Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/
     
    Boris Mohar, Oct 26, 2004
    #2
  3. I usually reply at the bottom, with exceptions. A top posting sometimes
    seems best when it is one of several responses, and I think everyone on the
    group who cares has already read the original. Sometimes I put a response
    in the middle, where I'm commenting on something specific within the
    original message.

    There is nobody who can decide what is "correct" on this matter. I used to
    enjoy reading a newsgroup, but the insistence of a few individuals on how
    and where to post a comment drove me away. I think the substance of the
    response is what matters.

    And then there are folks who enoy correcting spelling errors in postings.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Oct 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Jeff Savage

    Jim Carriere Guest

    Bottom replies used to be normal, back in the earlier days when
    everbody had tin and elm newsreaders. Then Microsoft came along and
    did pretty much everything a different way, including Outlook (and
    the express version) that defaults to top replies.

    Microsoft is like the General Motors of the computer world- good at
    sellling a lot of their product, and even turning out some good
    products, but mainly turning out a whole lot of mediocre products.
    Back on topic, I haven't got it figured out who is analogous to Volvo :)
     
    Jim Carriere, Oct 28, 2004
    #4
  5. It's a matter of religion.

    Many people, particularly Usenet old-timers, prefer "bottom posting",
    where new text goes below quoted text. Actually, we generally prefer
    interleaved posting with snipping: the author of the new message
    quotes as much as is necessary to establish context (taking into
    account the nature of Usenet, which delivers messages in no
    particular order, so you don't know which of your readers will have
    seen the message you're quoting), inserts his or her comment, quotes
    the next relevant bit, inserts comment, and so forth.

    Note that both aspects - quoting before replying and snipping - are
    important. Snipping reduces message length (there are still many
    Usenet participants on slow and/or expensive links) and makes messages
    more convenient to read. It also highlights what portions of the
    quoted message you're referring to.

    This convention is sufficiently widespread that several newsreaders of
    pre-AOL vintage had "skip quoted material" commands - you'd hit a key
    and the reader would scroll to the first line that wasn't a quotation.

    Common belief has it that Microsoft Outlook was responsible for
    popularizing top posting as an alternative reply style. I believe
    there was some debate on that question the last time this came up in
    alt.folklore.computers, but certainly Outlook, and the Microsoft
    newsgroups, contributed to the practice.

    When Henry Spencer wrote "Son of 1036", a draft for a replacement for
    RFC 1036 (the Netnews specification), he included a recommendation for
    snipping. He didn't specifically endorse bottom-posting, but it's
    implied in some of the other comments (eg support for "skip quoted
    material" function).

    Son of 1036 never did make it to RFC status. Recently, however,
    Charles Lindsey (et al) have promulgated a new set of IETF drafts for
    updating 1036, however, and one of them, the "Usenet Best Practice"
    draft, is similar in many ways to Son of 1036.[1]

    I would say that's sufficient to conclude that the people most
    interested in Usenet style and convention - the ones who are actually
    going to the trouble to write standards drafts - advocate snipping
    quoted material and flagging what remains with the ">" character in
    the left margin. And they appear to lean toward bottom posting;
    while they don't attempt to explicitly require or recommend it, the
    other quotation guidelines make more sense for bottom-posted
    (possibly interleaved) style.


    1. http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/usefor.html

    --
    Michael Wojcik

    Unfortunately, as a software professional, tradition requires me to spend New
    Years Eve drinking alone, playing video games and sobbing uncontrollably.
    -- Peter Johnson
     
    Michael Wojcik, Oct 29, 2004
    #5
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.