[Home]How to post

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences | Newbie Help

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 66,67c66
*http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Anton Smit: "Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
*http://members.home.net/krobb7/quoting.html -- Ken Robbins - Quoting on Usenet
*http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html -- Anton Smit: "Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting

Category HTML FAQ -:- Category Other FAQ

A snippet taken from http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html ....

Why should I place my response below the quoted text?

Usually, the reading-flow is from left to right and from top to bottom, and people expect a chronological sequence similar to this. Especially people who are reading a lot of articles (and who therefore would qualify as the ideal person to answer your question) appreciate it if they can read at first the text to which you are referring. The quoted text is some kind of help to remember the topic, which of course will not work, if you place the quoted text below your response.

Furthermore, that's the standard. This may sound as a weak argument, but since people are not used to reading the other way around, they have no idea what you are referring to and have to go back and forth between the referenced articles, have to jump between different articles and so on. In short - reading the article becomes more and more difficult - for people who read many articles it is reason enough to skip the entire article, if the context is not obvious.

And besides: doesn't it look stupid to first get the answer and then see the question? (Aside from Jeopardy, of course.)

Furthermore, you (yes: You) save a lot of time using this way of quoting: You do not need to repeat what the person you refer to wrote, in order to show the context. You just place your comment after the text you wish to comment upon, and everybody immediately knows what you refer to. Also, you realize which text you are *not* responding to and can delete these parts.

So: using this technique you save time, your readers don't have to waste time, you save bandwidth and disk-space. Isn't it great what you can achieve by such simple means?

OE Quote Fix has a good reputation for making it easier for Outlook Express users to quote correctly: http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
From Microsoft:


 When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it
 down to include only text pertinent to your response.   Your response
 should appear below the quoted information.
 In follow-ups, whether News or Mail, CUT headers & signatures, PRUNE
 quotations, and preserve order.  That is to say, quote above each
 part of your reply as much of the earlier stuff as is needed to put
 the new material in context, but no more; most readers will be able

 to refer to the earlier article itself, if need be. Never write on
 the same line as a quotation, except in lists and notes; generally
 leave a wholly blank line between. Do not quote the header or the
 signature, unless it is relevant to do so.
(/quote) See http://www.jsiinc.com/newsgroup_document.htm

RFC 1855
 If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
 summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
 enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
 sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
 Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
 postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
 response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
 helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!
Some top-posters also use a sigsep (two hyphens and blank space on a line by itself). That means replying to their top-posted article gives me just his text to work with -- the sigsep and everything under it is gone, truncated by software that knows what a sigsep is for. If I want to use relevant quotes to give context to their comments, to establish context for my comments, I have to open another window with the previous message, and do artful cut-and-paste. Of course, that method then loses the indentation markers, so the context is =still= mucked up until I further format the page. That's a a lot of work that would be entirely unnecessary if the guidelines (RFC 1855) were followed.

The object is to communicate with the reader, not just make life easy for the writer. It's the ame idea behind using mark-up and formatting and layout and design to build a web site -- the author does a little work and sufffers a little invonvenince so all the readers can benefit. If you've got something worthwhile to say, it's worth putting some thought into designing the message.

Additional references --

Comments --

Related reading:

Iso: My recent attempt to explain the benefits of topposting (in microsoft.public.netiquette), feel free to refine the arguments.

Could someone please enlighten me as to the reason why replies to posts are supposed to be at the bottom of the previous post, rather than at the top?

With posts containing multiple points and questions, a topposted answer is normally ambigious.

Discussions normally involve refuting, commenting on, agreeing with points a previous poster has made, so a question followed by an answer is a normal top-down thing. Topposting is normally considered as jeopardy posting, since here the answer would come before the question

It doesn't make sense to me to do it that way.

People don't all use Usenet in the same way.

If you are following a series of posts, you know what the previous post was about;

You are assuming here that all Usenet posts are available in your news reader, so you can see all the posts - this assumption does not hold water, since Usenet is a finite resource.

Usenet works by sending a copy of all new posts to each and every server in a peer to peer network. So every news server may have a copy of your post - except those that decide they don't want your posts.

So every server has limited disk space, once that limit has been reached, posts get dropped. With binaries groups taking up a huge portion of space, there's not much room left for text only posts.

Also because of limited disk space, posts expire and are removed. So in a long-running thread, some newsservers won't have a significant portion of threads because they've expired.

There's also network problems that cause posts to be dropped, plus filters.

to scroll all the way to the bottom to see the reply is a pain.

Bottom posting involves quoting only the content that is relevant to what's being quoted or referred to, so a good poster will trim out all the bits he's not directly commenting on. Where he's commenting on a large body of text, he would normally summarise the main point, and then add his comment to that.

You should see the beginnings of a bottom posters reply when you are at the top of a post. As is the case with this reply of mine.

On the other hand, if you have not been following a thread, you can scroll down to read the previous post, if you feel the need.

So that would limit the number of posts a Usenet server could hold, plus you'd not be putting your point across as well as you could. Why include the post at all if you are not commenting on anything within it? Might as well just not quote anything at all, and save the wasted bandwidth!

Some people make a really big deal of this, so I assume it's not just a matter of personal preference - or is it?

Bottom posting, with good quoting is more efficient resource wise, plus its easier to get involved in a thread that is correctly bottom posted, even if you are missing a large chunk of that thread.

There are some good links covering this topic, here's a starting point for you: http://www.html-faq.com/faq.php?key=topposting

Its all really about maximising your ability to communicate. Some people go on about how they don't care about how they communicate, which is really strange considering they are participating in a highly communicative environment on Usenet.

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences | Newbie Help
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited August 5, 2003 6:00 pm (diff)

This FAQ is happily hosted by Betadome Digital Media