Re: Why reply at the bottom of posts?
- From: dev <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:36:52 -0700
/ITinerant/ said:
> I'm just curious as to why so many replies are under the original post
> instead of at the top?
> Personally I find this annoying to have to scroll to the bottom to see the
> latest reply.
> In fact, I usually go on to the next post when I'm just lurking.
>
> What news reader are folks using that does this?
>
> This isn't meant to be a mean spirited question.
There are proponents of both styles. Top-posting makes best sense in
mail, when perhaps a single reply can be expected.
In news groups, where threads are deep, I think bottom-posting makes for
better intelligibility - if done with a competent newsreader that does not
mangle quotes as O.E. can. The entire thread can be viewed, and
continuity of the discussion is preserved. Redundancies and sigs can be
stripped. <ctrl-end> usually scrolls to the bottom in a flash.
Another problem with top-posting in groups is that some readers strip out
all text below the -- signature delimiter, as they should. Thus, the
earlier text may vanish, forcing the reader to click on references - which
may have expired from the server.
One thing on which either camp would likely agree is that mixed posting -
bottom and top - quickly creates an unreadable mess. Whichever style you
use, it is best to go with the flow of the thread.^
.
- References:
- Why reply at the bottom of posts?
- From: ITinerant
- Why reply at the bottom of posts?
- Prev by Date: RE: firewall not working
- Next by Date: VISTA Operating System
- Previous by thread: Re: Why reply at the bottom of posts?
- Next by thread: Re: Why reply at the bottom of posts?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|