[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4322DDE5.15091.E77DBB7@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Sep 10 02:21:57 2005
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Top posting [was: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!]
Dee Holtsclaw wrote:
> It's also quite a pain to inline post for those unfortunates stuck with
> BillCo's LookOut! The quote formatting in many versions tends to get confused
> when you try to insert new text and you often end up with a tangled mess.
So the rest of us should "suffer" to make life easier for people stupid
enough to use about the crappiest MUA ever made?
Gimme a break...
If you "have to" use Outlook and thus properly quoting and trimming
your messages is "too hard", just go boil your head, or at least be
polite enough to the rest of us to simply not post.
The abortion that is message quoting and top-posting in Outlook is
largely due to an over-zealous approach to its early design to make it
even shittier than Lotus Notes was. Given that, it is outstandingly
successful, but is utter rubbish for use in traditional threaded
mailing list conversations which require an entirely different approach
and mindset for _efficient_ information exchange and debate.
Top-posted, non-inline replies are fine for typical "corporate" Email
exchanges where it is commonly the case that a single, and usually
simple, issue is at hand:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Tom
From: Mary
Subject: Monthly sales figures?
I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Mary
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures?
No problems. Dick is helping and we'll have them done before that.
[red]
To: Tom
From: Mary
Subject: Monthly sales figures?
I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Tom
From: Mary
CC: Dick
Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures?
That's great, but HR has just bumped my DC flight to the red-eye so
I can assist in interviewing the new regional sales manager there.
I need the report to read on the flight so you'll have to get it to
me by Email before 6:00am Thursday.
[blue]
To: Mary
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures?
No problems. Dick is helping and we'll have them done before that.
[/blue]
[red]
To: Tom
From: Mary
Subject: Monthly sales figures?
I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
...ad nauseum.
The point of such quoting is that at any point you can CC in someone
not part of the conversation and they can see the whole story (so long
as they don't mind reading "backwards"). In (most) public mailing
lists, that function is provided by official archives of the list
traffic.
For those in the main thread of such top-posting conversations, all
that matters is the latest addition, "conveniently" put at the top.
Sadly for top-posters, that model simply does not apply to typical
mailing list traffic. Many of us who read these lists simultaneously
track _dozens_ of conversations PER LIST and do so for many lists. Top
posting is thus very disruptive of the "normal", very long-term
historically institutionalized and thus EXPECTED conversational style
of such lists.
It is also totally contrary to normal logical thought and reading
processes for Western languages.
So, if anyone wants to take part in discussions in lists like this,
don't be surprised if you are ignored, flamed or both, for "breaking
the rules" because of your choice of top-posting and/or non-inline
(where appropriate; it's not always) commentary style. You get that
response not JUST because "it's wrong" but because you are
significantly disrupting the ability of many who otherwise give their
free time and often considerable expertise as free advice, to do so.
Personally, it has got to the point where I often just delete top-
posted replies to messages in threads I'm interested in following
because the mental exercise of working out what the heck part or parts
of what has gone before are being responded to is just not worth the
effort.
Regards,
Nick FitzGerald
Powered by blists - more mailing lists