Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

**GoJo4** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

"Lyle Fairfield" <lylefair@yahoo .ca> wrote in message
news:Xbcde.654$ Rr3.457@read1.c gocable.net...[color=blue]
>I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as,
>"Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful and
>am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous post
>that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
>[/color]

Shut up. (See above post to give you some idea.)

**Alan Webb** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

GoJo4,
"Shut Up!?" A rather trollish response, that. Lyle may wish for a better
behaved populus seeking wisdom here but experience demonstrates that this
bunch has an unruly minority that is difficult to contain. I for one,
appreciate the brevity because it lets me move on to another thread that is
still serving to help someone.

--
Alan Webb
knoNOgeek@SPAMh otmail.com
"It's not IT, it's IS"

"GoJo4" <nada@nada.co m> wrote in message
news:DOqdndVZxZ 3_8ejfRVn-pg@vnet-inc.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Lyle Fairfield" <lylefair@yahoo .ca> wrote in message
> news:Xbcde.654$ Rr3.457@read1.c gocable.net...[color=green]
>>I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as,
>>"Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful
>>and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous
>>post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.
>>[/color]
>
> Shut up. (See above post to give you some idea.)
>[/color]

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Thanks.
:-)

**Mike MacSween** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

"Lyle Fairfield" <lylefair@yahoo .ca> wrote in message
news:Xbcde.654$ Rr3.457@read1.c gocable.net...[color=blue]
>I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as,
>"Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful[/color]

why?
[color=blue]
> and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous
> post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.[/color]

That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get to the
actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should be at the
bottom (because top posting is 'bad').

If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's
about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post! If
you're having a conversation do you reply every time with:

"Well Frank, you just said yada yada yada blah blah blah and my reply to
that is rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb" ? Of course you don't. We don't 'quote the
original/most recent' in conversation, well not normally. We assume that the
person who just spoke can remember what they just said and that anybody else
who's listening can remember too.

One reason for quoting is to reply to each point seperately. But if
somebody's just a quick thanks I can't see the issue. I'd rather see a brief
acknowledgement that takes less than a screen than nothing.

Most newsreaders make it clear what post is in reply to what other post, and
it's at least as time consuming to scroll down through quoted text as it is
to switch to the post above to see what it was (if you've forgotten).

Mike[color=blue]
>
> --
> --
> Lyle
>
> "The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They find
> one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that
> will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on
> all thinking people."
> - Gilbert Highet[/color]

Thanks Gilbert, I'll bear that in mind.

**Mike MacSween** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

"Trevor Best" <nospam@besty.o rg.uk> wrote in message
news:4275ebe3$0 $2055$db0fefd9@ news.zen.co.uk. ..[color=blue]
> Thanks.
> :-)[/color]

I'll try that.

**rkc** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Mike MacSween wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thanks Gilbert, I'll bear that in mind.[/color]

Agreed.

**Rick Brandt** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Mike MacSween wrote:[color=blue]
> That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get
> to the actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should
> be at the bottom (because top posting is 'bad').
>
> If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what
> it's about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every
> post! If you're having a conversation do you reply every time with:
>
> "Well Frank, you just said yada yada yada blah blah blah and my reply
> to that is rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb" ? Of course you don't. We don't
> 'quote the original/most recent' in conversation, well not normally.
> We assume that the person who just spoke can remember what they just
> said and that anybody else who's listening can remember too. [SNIP][/color]

Sorry, but you're assuming that everyone reads newsgroups the same way you do.
While you dislike having to scroll through some quoted text in a single message
I dislike scrolling through hundreds of headers that I have already read.
Therefore I set my filter to "New Headers Only". If I read a post that is a
reply with no quoted text then it often makes absolutely no sense. So now I
have to go up and change my filter so "Show All" just so I can back-read enough
posts to see what the poster is responding to. I do not consider Newsnet
threads to be "conversati ons" and one should not have to get in at the beginning
of a thread to be able to participate in it. In some groups threads will live
on for weeks or months at a time.

An even bigger reason to quote is that not all messages are properly propogated
to all news servers. Even if I chose to "Show All" as my default I will still
see the occassional "RE: blah blah" subject that is completely isolated in its
own thread. I would imagine that this unreliability is why quoting/bottom
posting was long ago adopted as the preferred method to use because it was
undoubtedly the rule rather than the exception when Newsgroups first started
out.

Let me add that I do feel that lazy, thoughtless quoting where a long post is
left unsnipped just to add a one sentence reply is a stupid thing to do and is
easier to live with in a top-post than in a bottom post, but that does not
reflect on the practice of quoting/bottom posting per-se. It just reflects on
people who do things incorrectly and poorly desinged software that doesn't take
us to the new text automatically.

Pan (I believe) has a nice feature where all quoted text is collapsed to a
single marker which has to be double-clicked to reveal the text. Seems like a
nice option that other readers should provide as then seeing quoted text is a
completely individual decision and Top/Bottom posting becomes largely a
non-issue. Another would be a "Show this whole thread" option that would allow
me to switch to "Show All" only for the particular thread instead of the all or
nothing option that I have now. Anyone know of a reader that provides that?

I have tried a half dozen other readers over the last few years and it seems
that for every cool feature that one has it also has one or two things that tick
me off. I inevitably find myself back in OE.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

**Mike Preston** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:59:17 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
<rickbrandt2@ho tmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mike MacSween wrote:[color=green]
>> That's your opinion. I can't stand wading through quoted text to get
>> to the actual post, which according to 'conventional wisdom' should
>> be at the bottom (because top posting is 'bad').
>>
>> If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what
>> it's about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every
>> post! If you're having a conversation do you reply every time with:
>>[/color]
>
>Sorry, but you're assuming that everyone reads newsgroups the same way you do.
>While you dislike having to scroll through some quoted text in a single message
>I dislike scrolling through hundreds of headers that I have already read.
>Therefore I set my filter to "New Headers Only". If I read a post that is a
>reply with no quoted text then it often makes absolutely no sense. So now I
>have to go up and change my filter so "Show All" just so I can back-read enough
>posts to see what the poster is responding to. I do not consider Newsnet
>threads to be "conversati ons" and one should not have to get in at the beginning
>of a thread to be able to participate in it. In some groups threads will live
>on for weeks or months at a time.
>
>Pan (I believe) has a nice feature where all quoted text is collapsed to a
>single marker which has to be double-clicked to reveal the text. Seems like a
>nice option that other readers should provide as then seeing quoted text is a
>completely individual decision and Top/Bottom posting becomes largely a
>non-issue. Another would be a "Show this whole thread" option that would allow
>me to switch to "Show All" only for the particular thread instead of the all or
>nothing option that I have now. Anyone know of a reader that provides that?
>
>I have tried a half dozen other readers over the last few years and it seems
>that for every cool feature that one has it also has one or two things that tick
>me off. I inevitably find myself back in OE.[/color]

I believe that bottom posting and including enough from previous posts
to make the response somewhat understandable is the accepted practice
in usenet. Those that argue for anything other than that have tools
available (or forced upon them) that make another (or multiple other)
method(s) useful.

Personally, I don't care much one way or the other because Free Agent
makes short work of backing up a message or two or three and skipping
to the next unread message is as simple as hitting the N key, even if
the message you are currently reading is 4 months prior to the one you
want to move to.

So, I am responding as someone who has the tools necessary to make
insufficient quoting not a problem, but I feel, nonetheless, that to
quote insufficiently is inappropriate in the context of usenet.

mike

**Arno R** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

I agree with your point Lyle.
I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about.
So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO.
Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue.

I would prefer top-posting. Why ?
IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way.
Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message).

I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way,
I disagree here ... Why ?
I often search Google before posting a question.
So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them.
BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again.
Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."

Just my 2p

Arno R

"Lyle Fairfield" <lylefair@yahoo .ca> schreef in bericht news:Xbcde.654$ Rr3.457@read1.c gocable.net...[color=blue]
>I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as,
> "Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful
> and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous
> post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.[/color]

**Rick Brandt** · Nov 13 '05, 10:26 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Arno R wrote:[color=blue]
> I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way,
> I disagree here ... Why ? [snip][/color]

Bottom posting and proper snipping/quoting go hand in hand. If I need to
read quoted material I need to read it *before* the new material. If I
don't need to read the quoted material then it shouldn't be there. Top
posting tends to go hand in hand with quoting the entirety of the previous
message which is almost always unnecessary.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 10:27 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Arno R wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with your point Lyle.[/color]

So do I
[color=blue]
> I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about.
> So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO.
> Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue.[/color]

It is and I'll show you why it should be done this way.
[color=blue]
> I would prefer top-posting. Why ?
> IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way.
> Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message).[/color]

But which part of your post am I referring to now?
[color=blue]
> I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way,
> I disagree here ... Why ?
> I often search Google before posting a question.
> So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them.
> BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again.
> Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."[/color]

Have you been there lately? Not a problem.

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 10:27 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

So do I
It is and I'll show you why it should be done this way.
But which part of your post am I referring to now?
Have you been there lately? Not a problem.

If the above makes no sense that's because I was mocking a top poster,
now read my properly posted reply in next message to understand.

Arno R wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with your point Lyle.
> I think that readers must be able to see in the answers what the thread is about.
> So, indeed we need *enough* (not simply all) of the previous post IMO.
> Whether we should top-post or bottom-post is another issue.
>
> I would prefer top-posting. Why ?
> IME those who are following a thread know what it's about. It is fast to check follow-ups this way.
> Those who are new to the thread can also see immediately what it's about (underneath like in this message).
>
> I *know* a lot of us think that bottom-posting is the 'best' way,
> I disagree here ... Why ?
> I often search Google before posting a question.
> So almost always I do find relevant threads, and I start to read them.
> BUT I have to wade to a *lot* of the commented stuff over and over again.
> Often I don't even see the answer without having to move to "View this message only ..."
>
> Just my 2p
>
> Arno R
>
>
> "Lyle Fairfield" <lylefair@yahoo .ca> schreef in bericht news:Xbcde.654$ Rr3.457@read1.c gocable.net...
>[color=green]
>>I find the recent spat of very short replies to messages, such as,
>>"Thanks", "It worked", "It didn't work", "I'll try that" very unhelpful
>>and am suggesting that replies include enough of the original/previous
>>post that one may have some idea about what is being discussed.[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 10:27 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Mike MacSween wrote:
[color=blue]
> If you're following a thread there's a very good chance you know what it's
> about already (doh!). Why should it have to be repeated in every post![/color]

See my response a couple of threads down (or up depending on newsreader)
entitled "Insert Random Number", Locky didn't quote any of my text
when he asked me the next question about a function I'd given him, he
wanted to know how to call it in a query, I've given him a duff answer
because I forgot that my function had 2 parameters and not 1.

No, I'm not senile yet. I only ever forget 3 types of thing, names,
faces and I forget what the other thing was.

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 10:27 AM

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:59:17 +0000, Rick Brandt wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mike MacSween wrote:[color=green]
>> [quoted text muted][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Pan (I believe) has a nice feature where all quoted text is collapsed to
> a single marker which has to be double-clicked to reveal the text.[/color]

Found it, the Q key, even keeps the quoted text muted in replies :-)

Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Newsgroup Etiquette: Responses

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment