Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abandoning bottom-posting

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#51

Post by Aardwolf »

betterunix wrote: post #16
Aardwolf wrote: post #12

I usually top-post because why would someone I reply to want to see their own text first? Gmail hides the quoted part anyway. The exception is either when it's already a big group thread in which everyone bottom posted, or if I'm replying in-line to several parts of the email. I don't get why some people are so annoyed by bottom and/or top posting though. For me it all seems to go quite naturally...

Top-posting for a one-on-one thread is perfectly fine, unless you need to illustrate the specific text you are replying to (which I frequently do). When there are more than two people, though, there are other issues to consider, like the fact that some messages might not have been received by everyone (e.g. due to spam filters). The problem with top-posting is that the quoted text basically becomes useless. Why even…

I don't bother with it. I ignore it.

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#52

Post by lutusp »

viraptor wrote: post #50
lutusp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I bet you've not been exposed to many corporate email chains. Top-posting makes a lot of sense there. Yes, but only because replies don't typically intersperse quotes from the original. Once a choice is made to reply point by point, the argument for top-posting falls apart. So I imagine detailed quoting and replying, as opposed to simply replying, is rare. Example original post: "Here are my concerns, please provid…

Actually if someone asks you something point by point there's nothing to stop to you from copying the questions to your top post and replying "inline" there.

> Actually if someone asks you something point by point there's nothing to stop to you from copying the questions to your top post and replying "inline" there.

That would be neither top-posting nor bottom-posting. It would be a cybernetic chimera. :)

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#53

Post by mattmanser »

tmhedberg wrote: post #33
mattmanser wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? I have come to associate this particular style as meaning the emailer/poster is going to be an unhelpful, holier than thou, pedantic ass-hole. It's a shibboleth without doubt, but not for the clique you think. > I was walking down the street Better known as a sidewalk > when I had a revelation Oh what pray tell? >that not many people actually use NoSQL There's a distinction between idiots and people you fa…

I agree that inline replies, when taken to the extreme that you illustrate, are more asinine than they are useful. Personally, I tend to reply to a paragraph or two at a time, a style which doesn't, in my opinion, have the same "you idiot" rhetorical feel. It's just easier to read and understand than a giant block of text responding to several unrelated points, followed by a giant untrimmed quote. Not all bottom post…

True, there is a difference, that is a style you tend to to see on the more technical mailing groups.

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#54

Post by jefftk »

zdw wrote: post #15

If top posting is so awesome, why aren't the comments on his blog above the text?

Modern email clients use threading and quote-hiding to make everything look like bottom-posting. People who want to see context for your reply can just look up and see previous messages.

I agree that you want discussion posts in chronological order, oldest to newest reading down, whether this is on a blog or email, but technology has changed so that this is no longer the responsibility of the poster.

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#55

Post by cbr »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #17

Email is broke to the degree that we have to think about this. Maybe even more.

You no longer have to think about it. Just send your message in the way that's the default for your mail client, and modern mail readers like gmail will make it easy for your readers to get appropriate context.

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#56

Post by cbr »

dredmorbius wrote: post #30
IvyMike wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bottom posting is also good for people who might have missed a message in the thread. But it's worse for people who have been diligently following the email discussion the whole time. "Hey, could you repeat that first bit again and again and again? Yup!" I also don't like to delete old context, because a late email could eventually get forwarded to a new party, in which case having the complete context is an advant…

I also don't like to delete old context, because a late email could eventually get forwarded to a new party, in which case having the complete context is an advantage. A proper mail client will be fully capable of forwarding the full thread (or any relevant portion) to another user. Whose proper email client will be capable of interpreting the attachment as threaded email and displaying it properly.

How often have you done this? How often does it work? What fraction of people you communicate with are using sufficiently proper mail clients?

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#57

Post by dredmorbius »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #40
dredmorbius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which utterly breaks for those who read the thread on a text-only mailer (e.g.: mutt).

"Doc, it hurts when I go like this." "Then stop going like that."

Or any mailer which doesn't present the highly-styled formatting of Microsoft Outlook as created by the author. Which would be, again, any text-based client, many mobile mail clients, and others. Pretty much anything but Microsoft Outlook.

Other enterprise clients are similarly bad. Lotus Notes, and others (though these are the two most commonly found ones).

Straight text is much more fungible and portable than highly-specified formats. There's a reason technical email etiquette and formatting rules emerged, though yes, contemporary business and non-technical use is diverging from these practices.

Re: Abandoning bottom-posting

#58

Post by dredmorbius »

cbr wrote: post #56
dredmorbius wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't like to delete old context, because a late email could eventually get forwarded to a new party, in which case having the complete context is an advantage. A proper mail client will be fully capable of forwarding the full thread (or any relevant portion) to another user. Whose proper email client will be capable of interpreting the attachment as threaded email and displaying it properly.

How often have you done this? How often does it work? What fraction of people you communicate with are using sufficiently proper mail clients?

In technologically-oriented communities, fairly often. In others, not so much.

Had an interesting situation with a legal case a few years back, much of which revolved around email evidence. Using standard Unix tools, cutting through, searching, organizing, and categorizing a large volume (thousands) of emails was fairly straightforward. Working with a legal team who had access only to conventional Windows products was ... maddening. Turns out, of course, that only a very small handful of documents were ultimately relevant to the court presentation, but understanding the context in selecting and presenting those was greatly assisted by being able to effectively process far more.

Post reply on HN