Subject:
|
Replying to the bottom? [was Re: I hate MOCPages]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:27:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
723 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > <unrelated rant>
> > P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
> > "You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette suggests that
> > you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read the text
> > in natural order from top to bottom."
> >
> > I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't actually
> > think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent posters
> > using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
>
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT. Not you in particular
> Alfred, but everyone. If people just hit <end> and type their text,
> there's no point.
>
> For instance, did you really need to quote the complete message you
> replied to? For context, you could have left the paragraph with the
> actual suggestion, but the rest could have been trimmed away.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> --
> Dan Boger
> dan@peeron.com
Hmm.. I guess it depends. When I trim, I usually trim things that are
completely unrelated to my reply. Otherwise, I tend to leave it all in. I know
its bandwidth heavier, but in this day and age, I think we should expect to be
able to send larger bits of data around the internet.
I also didn't think my reply made as much sense without the entire message. I
could have paraphrased, but then why do that when you just show what was said?
It also depends on how you read. At the basic level, this is a threaded
newsgroup, so there shouldn't be any need for leaving in original messages. Yet
there is. Mostly, I like to read the original message in a post because I don't
usually start from the beginnning of the thread, and when people start snipping
things, I loose the context pretty quickly.
I also like to have the context to what I am replying to in the body of the
email that is sent to me from the server. That way, when I am thinking about
things later, I can know what I was talking about.
Also, its nice to have more of the thread involved when you change FUT, as I am
doing here. (Really more of an admin thing, I think, rather than general.)
And your right, when I trim, or even reply to a post on the bottom, I tend to
reply on the bottom. I guess I go with whatever convention is being used in the
thread. That doesn't really make it netiquette thoa. Most of my email is reply
on top.
The point is that this is all sort of personal preference, and I don't see why
the posting server should be trying to enforce that as a standard.
Administrators are free to do what they think is best, but this one has been
bugging me for awhile, so I thought I would comment.
I use several different newsgroup systems, and I have to say I still like LUGNET
the best, so don't take this as a total bash, just a diagreement.
-Alfred
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
