You're so deep. (sic! ref: [0]) cheers! mar77i
[0] http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1311/18114.html On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Kyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > If someone has just joined the list and wants to read all the previous > messages on a specific topic, I believe this list has an archive of all > previous messages that can be read in whatever order makes sence to him > or her. The previous messages can even be sorted by date or by thread, > so that the conversation may be followed from beginning to end in order, > hopefully without repetition. But what of those of us who have been on > the list and are not new to the topic? Why should we be forced to scroll > down through the same part of the conversation we just read, repeated > over and over in each new message, before we finally find the answer to > the question, which by this time is buried beneath tons and tons of > minutia from all the messages that came before, including times, dates, > e-mail addresses and under all that, the message we just read 4 times > already? This is what happens when messages build upon each other > anyway, but at least with a top-posted message, the most important part, > the answer to the question, is in a prominent and highly visible place, > right at the top where it can be seen quickly. If I then need to refer > back to something previous because the answer is not clear enough to > stand on its own, I am then free to look back at prior messages that > will clarify the answer, or if prior messages are underneath, I am free > to scroll down for clarification. It is important, however, that the > answer clarify itself, so that new readers can easily deduce the > question from the answer. This naturally prevents the same message > needing to be posted over and over either at the top or at the bottom of > the new important part of the conversation. I should note here that many > e-mail clients automatically put messages into conversation or threaded > format, and some of them even allow the reader to see the entire > conversation in order from beginning to end. Many times, e-mail lists > are archived in this way as well, similar to the layout of a web forum. > It causes lots of trouble in these cases to have to dig through each > message, through nested quote after nested quote to try to find the > answer, only to give up, never finding the buried answer. > > Imagine a chat conversation that goes something like: > > Person1: I'm having a problem changing my password. > Person2: Person1 said: "I'm having a problem changing my password." Did > you try changing it using the passwd command in a terminal? > Person1: Person2 said: "Person1 said: "I'm having a problem changing my > password." Did you try changing it using the passwd command in a > terminal?" I tried that, but I get an error message about my password > being in the dictionary. > > The idea here is that each message gets larger and larger, and each > subsequent message contains the entirety, or at least a sizeable portion > of the first message, and every other message leading up to it. If this > is hard to read in a chat room, it is even harder to read in e-mail, > which rather than one-liners, is composed of multiple larger sentences, > and I can't see any good that can come from attempting to dig through > all the previous messages. Google already makes me dig for gold to get > to the answer to a question based on what I put into the search box, why > should simply trying to read an e-mail be even more of a challenge? > > Finally, I must come back to the ultimate solution. It is extremely > important that the subject of a message reflect its content. For > example, this message has nothing at all to do with an espeakup service > file as the subject implies, but is rather a completely unrelated topic. > Therefore, the subject of the message will reflect that it branched off > the conversation about espeakup, just in case someone wonders why their > e-mail client grouped it in the same place, but it will also indicate > that the message is on a different topic entirely, and is in fact > off-topic, not being related in any way to the discussion of espeakup, > systemd service files, the AUR or even Arch Linux. Also, this specific > message is clearly in reference to the religious war that seems to come > up on e-mail lists from time to time regarding where to put the content > of a new message. It usually starts by making someone feel like an idiot > for not posting their message in a way that makes the person starting > the flamewar happy. The problem is that each list is different, and each > person who starts such a holywar has a different opinion, depending on > the list where it starts. I need absolutely no quoting from previous > messages to clarify my response, I only need to respond, because the > initial post on the topic can be easily deduced by simply reading the > response. While I agree that responses such as "+1," "I agree," and > "Thanks" need some context, messages like this should generally be kept > to a minimum, should quote *only* the small part of the message to which > it applies rather than the entire message, and should generally add > quite a bit more value to the discussion than simply saying that I agree > with you. On the other hand, most answers can be given in a clear and > concise way that doesn't have to refer back to the question, and > certainly doesn't have to rewrite the entire conversation that led up to > it. I don't see any problem with a Q&A style post that responds to > multiple points by quoting each Q and following it up with an A, but in > the case of a single question and single answer, or in the case of a > single answer that addresses only one of the original questions, it > looks much better, and saves much time for both the composer of a > message and for readers to have separate messages that look like > > <message> > Subject: message quoting > Why is excessive quoting a bad idea in an e-mail message? What harm > could it do to bottom post my answers? > </message> > > <message> > Subject: Re: message quoting > excessive quoting in e-mail messages makes them harder to read, because > readers are forced to read the same thing over and over before they can > find the answer to their question. > </message> > > rather than to have a conversation that looks like > > <message> > Subject: message quoting > What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list? > </message> > > <message> > Subject: Re: message quoting > On Saturday, 16 November 2013 at 23:36, List Poster > <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list? > > Bottom post. Put your answer below the original text of the message to > which you are replying. > </message> > > <message> > Subject Re: message quoting > On Saturday, November 16, 2013 at 5:55 PM, First Responder > >[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday, 16 November 2013 at 23:36, List Poster > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What is the best way to answer a question on an e-mail list? > > > > Bottom post. Put your answer below the original text of the message > > to which you are replying. > > _1. > </message> > > In summary, make your subject line reflect the content of the message. > Usually, replying is enough, but if the message strays too far from the > topic of conversation, make the subject line reflect this. Refer back to > the subject of this message for an example. Keep quoting to an absolute > minimum, and if quoting, rather than top or bottom posting, answer the > quoted question inline, and only quote the usually very small parts of > the message that are relevant to the answers. However, the best possible > posting style is to write the post in such a way where no quoting is > necessary. Make the answer to the question stand on its own, clearly and > concisely providing an answer that new readers will find useful, either > paraphrasing the question within the answer, or making every effort to > make it possible to very easily deduce the question from the answer. One > more thing: if you find that you must quote, edit that very long > attribution line. When lots of dates and times from different time zones > come together, it only serves to confuse readers. It is probably > sufficient to edit the attribution so that it looks like "Person wrote"" > "According to Postman Pete," or similar short, catchy if desired, > attribution line. Hope this helps. > ~Kyle > http://kyle.tk/ > -- > "Kyle? ... She calls her cake, Kyle?" > Out of This World, season 2 episode 21 - "The Amazing Evie"
