On Feb 12, 2010, at 17:03 , M. Fioretti wrote: > Keith wrote: > >> why some dislike top posting. If I am following a long thread the >> last thing I want to do is page down over the information I have >> read before. > > One of the reasons for bottom posting (on a support mailing list like > this, at least) is that half the reason it exists is for people who > will read it weeks or months in the future. That is to build over time > archives where as many pages as possible are ordered, understandable, > stand-alone tips (as in "first the description of the problem, then > the solution). Consistent bottom posting makes the archives more > useful for people looking for solutions via search engines, which in > turn decreases the number of questions to the list (which is > particularly important for lists like this, which allow messages from > non-members).
Good point, Marco, and the first really rational - as opposed to religious - justification for bottom-posting. My own position is when in Rome do as the Romans. If I find that the general rule is bottom-posting I bottom-post out of courtesy and live with the inevitable persons who don't trim hard before posting. 90% of what goes on in here I delete on the basis of the subject line. But if nothing is said, then I top-post because this is without doubt the Internet norm. And as someone pointed out, most emails are short and (should) contain only one point, and it's just as easy to read a top-post as a bottom-post. I think the example was an exchange about a lunch date. Just my 2c. //J --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
