The problem is not posting order so much as quoting order.
Nicholas Wheeler wrote:
I don't know, I've got hundreds of e-mails in little
google-mail-style-threads that were received in perfect order. Since the
technology has progressed so far where that really isn't a problem (except
perhaps in rare circumstances), then there's definitely no reason why
bottom
posting is better than top posting, or vice versa. :)
See! There was no need to quote yourself. The above comment had nothing
to with what you said, but instead it was a reply to Carl's comment.
Top-posting just before your own quote implied you were replying to
yourself. I _still_ had to scroll down to the end to see WTF you were
commenting on.
On 6/23/06, Carl Lowenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Nicholas Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using Linux for over seven years and, until this list, I've
never
> heard anyone complaining about top-posting vs bottom-posting. I think
it's
> silly to think one way is right -- regardless of your preference of
client.
> The purpose of having a 'subject' line is to inform the reader of the
e-mail
> what the subject of the e-mail is about, so some people are capable of
> remembering the last things written, and could therefore get right to
the
> point and read the new information, while other people less capable of
> remembering the last things written have to scroll down to remember
what
is
> written. Then they complain that this is an inconvenience. If the
person
had
> bottom-posted, then everyone would have to scroll down equally.
However, since you left the self-quote in, you've managed to make your
opponents' point for them quite nicely. People are /not/ going to
remember whole conversations involving several people by just reading
the top post. This is especially so when the top-poster quotes more than
one previous post within their own. That method of posting also forces
the reader to scroll. In fact, it encourages a "Scroll to the bottom,
read, scroll up, read, scroll up, read, ..., scroll back to the bottom
read" behavior which becomes a major PITA for posts quoting several people.
With bottom-posting, I have a better chance of getting the gist of the
previous conversation on my way to the bottom of the email where lies
the most recent comment.
The bottom-post algorithm originated when networks were a lot slower
than they are now. Messages were not always received in the sequence
in which they were sent, and it made a lot of sense to remind the
reader as to what the reply pertained to.
This has nothing to do with the capability of people to remember the
last things written. Even today, messages are not always received in
the order that they are written.
carl
I left Carl's quote in for reference - or, in case it's not really
needed, for bad form just so's I'd piss /somebody/ off. ;)
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
