Thread Subject: etiquette (top-posting or bottom posting)

Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
lot of people here using bottom posting.

Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it all?

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting

The main options are top-posting — replying above the
original message; bottom-posting — replying below; or
interleaved posting. While each online community differs on
which styles are appropriate or acceptable, within any
community the use of the "wrong" method risks being seen as
a major breach of netiquette, and can provoke vehement
response from community regulars.

G.A.M.:
<SNIP artificial worries...

who cares - as long as it is an interesting posting...

us

OK - glad to hear that.

"us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message
<fbd76t$n5n$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> G.A.M.:
> <SNIP artificial worries...
>
> who cares - as long as it is an interesting posting...
>
> us

In article <fbda4i$sd8$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
 "G.A.M. " <x0zero@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK - glad to hear that.
>
> "us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message
> <fbd76t$n5n$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > G.A.M.:
> > <SNIP artificial worries...
> >
> > who cares - as long as it is an interesting posting...
> >
> > us

Okay, you got two replies (so far): Walter said he prefers interleaved
posting (and explained why) and Urs (aka "us") said he doesn't care. So
what do you do? You top-post your reply. Do you really care what
anyone says?

FWIW, I agree with Walter. (And I apologize for my tone if you never
received Walter's reply.)

--
Doug Schwarz
dmschwarz&ieee,org
Make obvious changes to get real email address.

In article <fbdji4$rg6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
 roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

> In article <see-307B58.01541902092007@news.frontiernet.net>,
> Doug Schwarz <see@sig.for.address.edu> wrote:
> >(And I apologize for my tone if you never
> >received Walter's reply.)
>
> The Matlab Central newsreader appears not to have received any
> usenet postings since about 21:30 GMT Thurs Aug 30th.
>
> I sent Mathworks a message about this early Saturday afternoon,
> but unless someone happens to sneak in some overtime on the weekend,
> I'm not expecting this to be looked into until Tuesday (after
> the holiday).

Well, interestingly, I just checked MATLAB Central and *my* post is
there (made via usenet), but yours is not. Go figure.

So, I'm sorry G.A.M. for my tone and in case Walter's reply never
arrives, here's what he said:



In article <fbd5hg$9ij$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
 roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

> In article <fbd4o6$mlo$1@fred.mathworks.com>, G.A.M. <x0zero@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> >definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> >lot of people here using bottom posting.
>
> Mid-posting with appropriate trimming ('mid-posting' is another
> name for what the wiki article called 'interleaved' posting.)
>
> In my opinion, mid-posting is the *only* long-term workable solution
> for busy technical newsgroups. As I posted in another group not
> long ago,
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.c/msg/a61e163257b78293
>
> Top-posting is inherently *selfish* -- it assumes that people are
> focused on that particular thread and have seen and remembered
> what has gone before. It might be fine for people who only read
> the occasional posting, but it is unworkable for busy people
> with many different things to track, especially for busy people who
> read hundreds of messages a day.

--
Doug Schwarz
dmschwarz&ieee,org
Make obvious changes to get real email address.

I prefer to start afresh; quoting strands from previous
posts where applicable. I guess that's a kind of interleaved
response. It keeps threads shorter, too... It saves having
to scroll through a whole load of irrelevant stuff.

Best,

Tom

"G.A.M. " <x0zero@gmail.com> wrote in message <fbd4o6$mlo
$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> lot of people here using bottom posting.
>
> Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
> post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it all?

I try to bottom post whenever it makes sense,
as IMHO this is the easiest to read. I think top
posting tends to be encouraged by mail systems
that leave the cursor at the top for you to start
typing. I know this was true at Kodak.

Also cut off a reasonable amount of the original
post. Be careful when cutting off too much, I've
seen some cases where too much was cut off
from a multiposted thread, and the attributions
were screwed up. This can cause hurt feelings.
Since I respond to so many different posts, I
tend not to be real careful about cutting out
exactly to the bone.

Interleaved responses make sense, but sometimes
those comments are easy to miss as you scroll
down.

Finally, if the OP top posts, then I'll follow the
same style.

John

G.A.M. wrote:
...[top posting repaired]...
> "us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message
> <fbd76t$n5n$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>> G.A.M.:
>> <SNIP artificial worries...
>>
>> who cares - as long as it is an interesting posting...
...
 > OK - glad to hear that.

Well, add me to the list who prefers bottom-posting and second's
Walter's take to GAM -- even after reading the followups.

Snip to pertinent sections retaining attribution and add to the
continuing conversation maintaining the flow -- since we read English
from top to bottom, it only makes sense to keep the chronological flow.

$0.02, etc., ...

--

Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
> In article <see-C8943E.02055702092007@news.frontiernet.net>,
> Doug Schwarz <see@sig.for.address.edu> wrote:
>>In article <fbdji4$rg6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>> roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>
>>> The Matlab Central newsreader appears not to have received any
>>> usenet postings since about 21:30 GMT Thurs Aug 30th.
>
>>Well, interestingly, I just checked MATLAB Central and *my* post is
>>there (made via usenet), but yours is not. Go figure.
>
> Hmmm -- I wonder if I'm posting enough to hit a spam filter setting? ;-)
>

Now what kind of fool spam filter would block your posts, Walter?

They always seem to make it through to my news host.

For what its worth, I also much prefer interleaved responses, with much
junk trimmed from the previous posts.

--
Dr Tristram J. Scott
Energy Consultant

OK - glad to hear that.

"us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message
<fbd76t$n5n$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> G.A.M.:
> <SNIP artificial worries...
>
> who cares - as long as it is an interesting posting...
>
> us

Doug Schwarz <see@sig.for.address.edu> writes:

> In article <fbdji4$rg6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>
>> In article <see-307B58.01541902092007@news.frontiernet.net>,
>> Doug Schwarz <see@sig.for.address.edu> wrote:
>> >(And I apologize for my tone if you never
>> >received Walter's reply.)
>>
>> The Matlab Central newsreader appears not to have received any
>> usenet postings since about 21:30 GMT Thurs Aug 30th.
>>
>> I sent Mathworks a message about this early Saturday afternoon,
>> but unless someone happens to sneak in some overtime on the weekend,
>> I'm not expecting this to be looked into until Tuesday (after
>> the holiday).
>
> Well, interestingly, I just checked MATLAB Central and *my* post is
> there (made via usenet), but yours is not. Go figure.
>
> So, I'm sorry G.A.M. for my tone and in case Walter's reply never
> arrives, here's what he said:

[snip copy of Walter's post]

This is PRECISELY why we like to quote and interleave responses. It
allows a meaningful followup and conversation even when various
servers/gateways/gremlins eat messages.

BTW, another vote for the traditional USENET usage of trimming quotes
and interspersing responses. This IS still a USENET group, no matter
how much The Mathworks tries to obscure that fact.

-Peter

"Thomas Clark" <thclark@REMOVETHISqinetiq.com> writes:

> I prefer to start afresh; quoting strands from previous
> posts where applicable. I guess that's a kind of interleaved
> response. It keeps threads shorter, too... It saves having
> to scroll through a whole load of irrelevant stuff.

Please don't do that. Always quote at least a piece of the message
you are replying to. Why? Because CSSM is not a web forum at The
Mathworks. It is a distributed USENET newsgroup, where messages get
lost (see the other messages in this thread), and different people's
servers and clients have different retention times, different methods
to fetch older articles in the same thread, etc, etc.

-Peter

I prefer bottom-posting ;-)
Jos

"G.A.M. " <x0zero@gmail.com> wrote in message <fbd4o6
$mlo$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> lot of people here using bottom posting.
>
> Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
> post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it
all?
>
> From Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting
>
> The main options are top-posting — replying above the
> original message; bottom-posting — replying below; or
> interleaved posting. While each online community differs
on
> which styles are appropriate or acceptable, within any
> community the use of the "wrong" method risks being seen
as
> a major breach of netiquette, and can provoke vehement
> response from community regulars.

> Finally, if the OP top posts, then I'll follow the
> same style.

heh - now there's a conundrum. How to indicate you're a top-poster in the
initial post? Maybe put your signature at the top? ;-)

G.A.M. wrote:
> Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> lot of people here using bottom posting.
>
> Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
> post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it all?

I prefer interleaving, and I try to leave some whitespace between quoted
blocks and my text to make it easier to read.

Top-posting is evil, and so is bottom-posting if you don't trim the
quotes. Here is the newsgroup netiquette:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/comics/xbooks/readpost/section-4.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/T/top-post.html

Dan

"Dan Hensley" <somewhere@over.there> wrote in message
news:1bWdnQoblpLxh0PbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> G.A.M. wrote:
>> Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
>> definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
>> lot of people here using bottom posting.

I prefer mid-posting/interleaved, as I think of newsgroup postings as sort
of a Q&A session. You ask, I answer, and we alternate.

>> Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
>> post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it all?

Keep the relevant pieces. The attributions for anybody whose text you're
quoting are all "relevant pieces", in my opinion. If I'd snipped all of
your message or all of Dan's, I'd _consider_ snipping that portion of the
attribution, but usually I only do that when I'm replying to a reply that's
several layers deep and if I'm replying specifically to one of the later
comments. *snip* the rest of the text to show that you've removed
something -- otherwise it can get tricky to figure out who said what and
comments can get taken out of context.

> I prefer interleaving, and I try to leave some whitespace between quoted
> blocks and my text to make it easier to read.

Agreed.

> Top-posting is evil, and so is bottom-posting if you don't trim the
> quotes. Here is the newsgroup netiquette:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/comics/xbooks/readpost/section-4.html
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/T/top-post.html

My favorite example of why I don't top-post:


Because who wants to read the punch-line before the rest of the joke?
Why is top-posting not a good idea?


Usenet is not Jeopardy :)

--
Steve Lord
slord@mathworks.com

Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on most
forums I contribute to. However interweaving has it
advantages when multiple points need addressed. Since the
posts on here are usually short and concise then
inerweaving isn't really called for, imo.

I think snipping was important in bygone days on the likes
of distribution lists when bandwidth was a problem.
Therefore it's not important these days - apart from the
annoyance factor.


"G.A.M. " <x0zero@gmail.com> wrote in message <fbd4o6
$mlo$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> lot of people here using bottom posting.
>
> Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
> post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it
all?

Jason wrote:
> Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on most
> forums I contribute to. However interweaving has it
> advantages when multiple points need addressed. Since the
> posts on here are usually short and concise then
> inerweaving isn't really called for, imo.
>
> I think snipping was important in bygone days on the likes
> of distribution lists when bandwidth was a problem.
> Therefore it's not important these days - apart from the
> annoyance factor.
...

May be your preference but we'll see where the overall group comes in --
as Steve Lord points out, top posting destroys the flow. As older
participant, I think top posting only became a problem really when a
vendor of widely used software put out a reader that defaults to leaving
the cursor at the top of the quoted text instead of the bottom...

The "apart from" portion of the reason for snipping is _far_ more
important than your post would make it seem, and there are still
significant numbers of users for which bandwidth is an issue (including
this one)...

A reinforcing vote for bottom-posting and judicious trimming w/
interleaved if it is appropriate for a given thread being an acceptable
alternative. Top-posting strictly verboten would be my technique in
writing a user interface...

--

[top posting repaired]

In article <fbmddc$mj0$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
 "Jason " <j_henderson44@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

> "G.A.M. " <x0zero@gmail.com> wrote in message <fbd4o6
> $mlo$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> > definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> > lot of people here using bottom posting.
> >
> > Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
> > post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it
> all?
>
> Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on most
> forums I contribute to.

But this is not a web forum. It is a usenet newsgroup to which The
MathWorks has provided a web interface.


> However interweaving has it
> advantages when multiple points need addressed. Since the
> posts on here are usually short and concise then
> inerweaving isn't really called for, imo.

Many threads involve more complicated subjects.


> I think snipping was important in bygone days on the likes
> of distribution lists when bandwidth was a problem.
> Therefore it's not important these days - apart from the
> annoyance factor.

Isn't that reason enough?

Look at it this way: a small effort on your part can make life a little
bit easier for many others. Isn't it a bit selfish not to do that?

--
Doug Schwarz
dmschwarz&ieee,org
Make obvious changes to get real email address.

[snipping applied]

> >
> > Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on
most
> > forums I contribute to.
>
> But this is not a web forum. It is a usenet newsgroup to
which The
> MathWorks has provided a web interface.

Surely then that's another important question. Do the
majority of users access the topics through usenet or
through the web interface. If through the web interface
then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
easily identified.


> > I think snipping was important in bygone days on the
likes
> > of distribution lists when bandwidth was a problem.
> > Therefore it's not important these days - apart from
the
> > annoyance factor.
>
> Isn't that reason enough?
>
> Look at it this way: a small effort on your part can make
life a little
> bit easier for many others. Isn't it a bit selfish not
to do that?
>

It's not a problem for me to adjust should the majority
wish such posting. I was just answering the original
question of which do I prefer.

Jason wrote:
...

> Surely then that's another important question. Do the
> majority of users access the topics through usenet or
> through the web interface. If through the web interface
> then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
> that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
> easily identified.
...

Usenet here -- and based on the observations when TMW was trotting out
the new interface, far more posts were from non-TMW interface than
theirs judging by the number with the tell-tale line wrap problems.

I'd venture a conjecture that the most new posters are actually using
the Google portal although that is simply conjecture based on some
observable quirks rather than looking at any sizable number of posting
headers...

But the fact remains c.s-s.m _is_ a usenet group...

There was a thread not terribly long ago iirc where the question was
asked as to whether that should be changed and the consensus was "no"...

--

"Steven Lord" <slord@mathworks.com> wrote in message
<fbmcvn$h93$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>
> "Dan Hensley" <somewhere@over.there> wrote in message
> news:1bWdnQoblpLxh0PbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> > G.A.M. wrote:
> >> Do people here prefer top-posting or bottom posting? (See
> >> definition below.) I usually use top-posting, but I see a
> >> lot of people here using bottom posting.
>
> I prefer mid-posting/interleaved, as I think of newsgroup
postings as sort
> of a Q&A session. You ask, I answer, and we alternate.

> > "Dan Hensley" <somewhere@over.there> wrote
> > I prefer interleaving, and I try to leave some
whitespace between quoted
> > blocks and my text to make it easier to read.
>
> Agreed.


Agreed as well, with a couple caveats. Interleaved without
whitespace it very, very difficult to read/follow - it is
common to miss parts of the discussion. However, I can be
happy with interleaved when judicious whitespace is used.

Unfortunately, the Matlab Central web interface (which is
what I use) makes the interleaved style very, very difficult
to use when replying. The web interface wraps the lines with
a narrow line break setting and it becomes difficult to read
the text, much less make an orderly reply with any
efficiency. Does anyone else in favor of interleaved use the
web interface? If so, what's the solution to replying
efficiently and orderly with interleaved?


>
> >> Also, what's the group's consensus on quoting the original
> >> post? Should we snip it down to the minimum or keep it all?
>
> Keep the relevant pieces. The attributions for anybody
whose text you're
> quoting are all "relevant pieces", in my opinion.

This sounds reasonable to me as well. However, I put way too
much effort into this reply and I'm still not sure it is
going to flow the way I intended and have the attributions I
intended because of the limitations of the web interface. In
fact, this one reply has made me realize that I probably
can't continue with this combination of interleaved
responses and the Matlab web interface. It's just too
difficult and time consuming.

Maybe I'll go with bottom posting and trimming as long as
I'm using the Matlab web interface...

>
> > Top-posting is evil, and so is bottom-posting if you
don't trim the
> > quotes.


Top-posting is definitely not evil. Just ask anyone who is
visually impaired and needs accessibility tools. The people
I know in this situation will praise you for using top
posting. Top posting has many other advantages, however, I
think the group's consensus is that top-posting isn't
preferred here so I'll be happy not to use it here.

P.S. I seem to have missed a lot of responses to this thread
and I also received some out of order (significantly delayed).

"Jason " <j_henderson44@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
<fbmfg5$idr$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> [snipping applied]
>
> > >
> > > Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on
> most
> > > forums I contribute to.
> >
> > But this is not a web forum. It is a usenet newsgroup to
> which The
> > MathWorks has provided a web interface.
>
> Surely then that's another important question. Do the
> majority of users access the topics through usenet or
> through the web interface. If through the web interface
> then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
> that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
> easily identified.


Thank you for raising this issue. As I just discovered when
trying to do an interleaved reply via the web interface,
that approach doesn't always work very well. Top posting
does indeed seem much better when using the web interface
(both for reading and replying).

>
>
> > > I think snipping was important in bygone days on the
> likes
> > > of distribution lists when bandwidth was a problem.
> > > Therefore it's not important these days - apart from
> the
> > > annoyance factor.
> >
> > Isn't that reason enough?

Excellent point.


> >
>
> It's not a problem for me to adjust should the majority
> wish such posting. I was just answering the original
> question of which do I prefer.


Yes, I'm happy to adjust too.

"Jason " <j_henderson44@REMOVEhotmail.com> writes:

> [snipping applied]
>
>> >
>> > Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on
> most
>> > forums I contribute to.
>>
>> But this is not a web forum. It is a usenet newsgroup to
> which The
>> MathWorks has provided a web interface.
>
> Surely then that's another important question. Do the
> majority of users access the topics through usenet or
> through the web interface. If through the web interface
> then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
> that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
> easily identified.

The day this group resembles a web forum instead of a USENET group is
the day I no longer participate. In fact I've often thought TMW would
do us all a big favor by disconnecting their forum software from CSSM
entirely. Those of us left on USENET would get less support questions
that TMW is paid to answer, and those who like web forums could quote
however they liked without offending the USENET fogeys.

-Peter

On Sep 2, 10:19 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
> In article <jGBCi.6041$F77.2...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
>
> Tristram Scott <tristram.sc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >Walter Roberson <rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
> >> Hmmm -- I wonder if I'm posting enough to hit a spam filter setting? ;-)
> >Now what kind of fool spam filter would block your posts, Walter?
>
> I was partly in jest, but I see that it let through exactly 15
> of my Thursday postings, and that everything of mine after that
> has gone AWOL -- the 7 other Thursday posts, the 14 Friday posts,
> the 10 saturday posts, the 17 so far today... about 48 posts
> of mine not allowed through.
>
> On the other hand when I look at some of the threads via Matlabcentral,
> they are terribly fragmented, with the usenet portions often appearing
> as individual threads instead of being tied together, and
> some of the usenet postings missing entirely. It isn't -just- me;
> I'm just the person who happens to be most affected.
> --

Just a few minutes ago I switched from the Matlab Central web
interface to Google Groups. Now I see messages I never knew existed
and the threads are organized correctly. Not only that, I can easily
do bottom posting or interleaved posting.

 "G.A.M." <x0Zero@gmail.com> wrote in message
<1189008740.543352.237460@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Just a few minutes ago I switched from the Matlab Central
web
> interface to Google Groups. Now I see messages I never
knew existed
> and the threads are organized correctly. Not only that, I
can easily
> do bottom posting or interleaved posting.

Yeah, but you probably had to give them a valid email
address, which is almost certainly full of spam by now.

"Jason " <j_henderson44@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in news:fbmfg5$idr$1
@fred.mathworks.com:

> Surely then that's another important question. Do the
> majority of users access the topics through usenet or
> through the web interface. If through the web interface
> then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
> that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
> easily identified.

It's not as important as it once was. The two groups this seems to make
the biggest difference to are us crotchety old ascii-based usenet users,
and newer users in a snit about being told by crotchety of ascii-based
usenet users not to top post. Fact is, most web interfaces I've seen are
as amenable to other styles. If someone is offended by being told how to
post, and doesn't mind if it rankles some, post however you want-especially
if you don't mind if the crotchetier players keep making noise. If someone
finds it just as easy to bottom post, but chooses not to just because
someone pointed out a breach of some netiquette standard, noise is
something they might expect.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"G.A.M." <x0Zero@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189008740.543352.237460@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 2, 10:19 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
> wrote:
>> In article <jGBCi.6041$F77.2...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
>>
>> Tristram Scott <tristram.sc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

*snip*

>> On the other hand when I look at some of the threads via Matlabcentral,
>> they are terribly fragmented, with the usenet portions often appearing
>> as individual threads instead of being tied together, and
>> some of the usenet postings missing entirely. It isn't -just- me;
>> I'm just the person who happens to be most affected.
>> --
>
> Just a few minutes ago I switched from the Matlab Central web
> interface to Google Groups. Now I see messages I never knew existed
> and the threads are organized correctly. Not only that, I can easily
> do bottom posting or interleaved posting.

In the future, when you see a thread on the MATLAB Central newsreader that's
missing posts that appear on Google Groups, please let the newsreader team
know (the email address, newsreader@mathworks.com, is at the bottom of the
main page and each thread's page) in addition to posting about it to make
sure they know about it and can investigate why those posts aren't being
displayed correctly on the MATLAB Central interface. In this case, I've
forwarded this message on to them already.

--
Steve Lord
slord@mathworks.com

Some posters like a top post,
others think them's is toast.
Bottom posts is clear to me,
all goes before is what I see.
Then of course there's always those
who like to post between their toes.
"Interleaf" posters like to say,
their discussion's clear as day.
Me? You ask? And I shall say;
my preference is here to stay:
For best news posting and digesting,
particular for matters int'resting,
for breaking down the inter leaves,
nicely and organically,
my preference is com-posting.

;-)

"Tim Davis" <davis@cise.ufl.edu> wrote in message <fbnh50$5af
$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Some posters like a top post,
> others think them's is toast.
> Bottom posts is clear to me,
> all goes before is what I see.
> Then of course there's always those
> who like to post between their toes.
> "Interleaf" posters like to say,
> their discussion's clear as day.
> Me? You ask? And I shall say;
> my preference is here to stay:
> For best news posting and digesting,
> particular for matters int'resting,
> for breaking down the inter leaves,
> nicely and organically,
> my preference is com-posting.
>
> ;-)
>

Compost my news? No, I pout.
I want my words to last, and SHOUT!
Reuse our bits? We'll be in fits.

Then there are those who only lurk.
They stand outside, post their homework.
Those posts are best if they do degrade.
Around them we must all wade.

Its spam that really is just dreck.
Tiffany, Nike, I've had all it up to my neck.
Composting those posts is so unsure.
Leave them to sink into manure.
Add carbon, nitrogen, and water won't hurt.
Soon the worms will turn them into dirt.

8-)

In article <fbosus$t56$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
 "John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

> "Tim Davis" <davis@cise.ufl.edu> wrote in message <fbnh50$5af
> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Some posters like a top post,
> > others think them's is toast.
> > Bottom posts is clear to me,
> > all goes before is what I see.
> > Then of course there's always those
> > who like to post between their toes.
> > "Interleaf" posters like to say,
> > their discussion's clear as day.
> > Me? You ask? And I shall say;
> > my preference is here to stay:
> > For best news posting and digesting,
> > particular for matters int'resting,
> > for breaking down the inter leaves,
> > nicely and organically,
> > my preference is com-posting.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
>
> Compost my news? No, I pout.
> I want my words to last, and SHOUT!
> Reuse our bits? We'll be in fits.
>
> Then there are those who only lurk.
> They stand outside, post their homework.
> Those posts are best if they do degrade.
> Around them we must all wade.
>
> Its spam that really is just dreck.
> Tiffany, Nike, I've had all it up to my neck.
> Composting those posts is so unsure.
> Leave them to sink into manure.
> Add carbon, nitrogen, and water won't hurt.
> Soon the worms will turn them into dirt.
>
> 8-)


Tim and John:

Don't quit your day jobs! :-)

--
Doug Schwarz
dmschwarz&ieee,org
Make obvious changes to get real email address.

Doug Schwarz <see@sig.for.address.edu> wrote in message <see-
A248A6.08554106092007@news.frontiernet.net>...
> Tim and John:
>
> Don't quit your day jobs! :-)
>
> --
> Doug Schwarz
> dmschwarz&ieee,org
> Make obvious changes to get real email address.

Darn! You waited until now to tell me? Too late
for that.

Anyone looking to hire a decrepit numerical
animalist? ;-)

John

"John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com> wrote in
message <fbov2h$r9b$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Doug Schwarz <see@sig.for.address.edu> wrote in message <see-
> A248A6.08554106092007@news.frontiernet.net>...
> > Tim and John:
> >
> > Don't quit your day jobs! :-)

No fear of that, I post my mangled poems either before the
sun rose, or sometimes after the sun cols.

> Darn! You waited until now to tell me? Too late
> for that.
>
> Anyone looking to hire a decrepit numerical
> animalist? ;-)
>
> John

Nay I must disagree
with self appellation applied by thee.
Look one, look all, and ye can show,
D'Errico's not decrepto.

... oh sorry ... I'll stop ;-) ... I promise. Really.
triu-ly ... oops.

Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
<muyy7fmpide.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> "Thomas Clark" <thclark@REMOVETHISqinetiq.com> writes:
>
> > I prefer to start afresh; quoting strands from previous
> > posts where applicable. I guess that's a kind of interleaved
> > response. It keeps threads shorter, too... It saves having
> > to scroll through a whole load of irrelevant stuff.
>
> Please don't do that. Always quote at least a piece of
the message
> you are replying to. Why? Because CSSM is not a web
forum at The
> Mathworks. It is a distributed USENET newsgroup, where
messages get
> lost (see the other messages in this thread), and
different people's
> servers and clients have different retention times,
different methods
> to fetch older articles in the same thread, etc, etc.
>
> -Peter


Peter,

Perhaps you've never seen my posts.

What I meant by 'quoting strands from previous posts where
applicable' was to ensure that readers could follow the
flow; and determine what I was responding to. By 'quote' I
mean leave the > arrows in - I didn't mean re-format
messages with "..." instead.

That's most necessary, of course, in a long thread.

---

All,

Seems to me that there are plenty of different viewpoints.
All I'll say is that if I post a question, then if you're
taking the time and trouble to answer my query - do it in
whatever format you prefer!

Kind Regards

Tom

"Thomas Clark" <thclark@REMOVETHISqinetiq.com> writes:

> Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
> <muyy7fmpide.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
>
>> "Thomas Clark" <thclark@REMOVETHISqinetiq.com> writes:
>>
>> > I prefer to start afresh; quoting strands from previous
>> > posts where applicable. I guess that's a kind of interleaved
>> > response. It keeps threads shorter, too... It saves having
>> > to scroll through a whole load of irrelevant stuff.
>>
>> Please don't do that. Always quote at least a piece of the message
>> you are replying to. Why? Because CSSM is not a web forum at The
>> Mathworks. It is a distributed USENET newsgroup, where messages
>> get lost (see the other messages in this thread), and different
>> people's servers and clients have different retention times,
>> different methods to fetch older articles in the same thread, etc,
>> etc.

> Perhaps you've never seen my posts.
>
> What I meant by 'quoting strands from previous posts where
> applicable' was to ensure that readers could follow the
> flow; and determine what I was responding to. By 'quote' I
> mean leave the > arrows in - I didn't mean re-format
> messages with "..." instead.
>
> That's most necessary, of course, in a long thread.

Then I guess we are in complete agreement! "Start afresh" is what
confused me... Sorry for the misplaced rebuke.

-Peter

In article <fbmddc$mj0$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
Jason <j_henderson44@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>Personally I prefer top posting and would use it on most
>forums I contribute to. However interweaving has it
>advantages when multiple points need addressed. Since the
>posts on here are usually short and concise

Well I don't know about that. Some of the posters seem like
they could extemporize several pages of definitions on
"concise" but not be able to give any examples. One of them
appears to have the kind of mind that drives in circles on
the Autobaun, if you know what I mean. Being studied as a
cure for insomnia, I hear.

>then inerweaving isn't really called for, imo.

And some of the posters really tear apart questions, in the
middle of sentances sometimes. And if you don't ask your
question -just right-, they're likely to go off and answer
some other question entirely. Can never seem to understand
the questions -- and the way they go on and on and twist things
around, half the time you come away thinking, "It all seemed
to make sense at the time, but what did theyy actually say??"
Personally, I think some of them migrate from Kansas on a whirlwind
and forget to take off their emerald coloured glasses -- can't see
the stop signs.


>I think snipping was important in bygone days on the likes
>of distribution lists when bandwidth was a problem.
>Therefore it's not important these days - apart from the
>annoyance factor.

Now that more people are connected, snipping has become more
important than ever before. The volume of Usenet traffic is
rising exponentially (literally -- I've seen graphs), and that
means that a lot of us are trying to read *many* more messages
every day. The high volume makes it hard to keep everything
straight if not enough context is provided, but if too much
of the original is quoted, then a significant amount of time
gets wasted skimming over paragraphs and points irrelevant to the
new material.

Especially when you get a back and forth volley, if there isn't
appropriate trimming and interleaving, it can get moderately hard
to understand what is going on unless one deliberately stops and
re-reads the exchange from the beginning, reversing all the top-
posting that got added in along the way. This is not a Good Thing.

I've noticed that some people top-post under the assumption that
there won't be any follow-up. That's not a good assumption: the
original poster might ask for clarification or for examples, or
someone else might chime in with alternatives or exemplification
or possibly even with correction or pointing out something that
was overlooked. *Any* reply might become part of an ongoing
discussion, so interleaved posting is, in my experience, the -only-
viable form in technical forums... and I've been active in technical
postings for more than 20 years.
--
   "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
   demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers

In article <fbmfg5$idr$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
Jason <j_henderson44@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

>Surely then that's another important question. Do the
>majority of users access the topics through usenet or
>through the web interface. If through the web interface
>then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
>that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
>easily identified.

Statistics time:

I downloaded all the comp.soft-sys.matlab postings that are
hanging around the news server I use; the oldest posting
still resident there dates back to May 3 2007, which predates
the new newsreader.

  Total: 22520 postings
                             ==============

  old newsreader: 8873 postings 39.4%
  new newsreader: 6471 postings 28.7%
  direct mathworks internal: 192 postings 0.9%
                             --------------
                             15536 postings at mathworks 69.0%

  me via Usenet: 985 postings 4.4%
  others via google 2995 postings 13.3%
  other Useneters: 3004 postings 13.3%
                              -------------
                              6984 postings via usenet 31.0%


Thus, the majority (more than 2/3) of the postings were made using
the Matlab web interface, and another 13.3% were from the google
graphical interface. Of the rest, 1 in 4 are from me.
--
  "It is important to remember that when it comes to law, computers
  never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given
  commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission."
                                               -- Brad Templeton

In article <1189966621.118818.24850@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
 "G.A.M." <x0Zero@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 16, 1:01 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
> wrote:
> > In article <fbmfg5$id...@fred.mathworks.com>,
> >
> > Jason <j_henderso...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Surely then that's another important question. Do the
> > >majority of users access the topics through usenet or
> > >through the web interface. If through the web interface
> > >then it's my opinion (granted it doesn't count for much)
> > >that top posting is sufficient since the previous posts are
> > >easily identified.
> >
> > Statistics time:
> >
> > I downloaded all the comp.soft-sys.matlab postings that are
> > hanging around the news server I use; the oldest posting
> > still resident there dates back to May 3 2007, which predates
> > the new newsreader.
> >
> > Total: 22520 postings
> > ==============
> >
> > old newsreader: 8873 postings 39.4%
> > new newsreader: 6471 postings 28.7%
> > direct mathworks internal: 192 postings 0.9%
> > --------------
> > 15536 postings at mathworks 69.0%
> >
> > me via Usenet: 985 postings 4.4%
> > others via google 2995 postings 13.3%
> > other Useneters: 3004 postings 13.3%
> > -------------
> > 6984 postings via usenet 31.0%
> >
> > Thus, the majority (more than 2/3) of the postings were made using
> > the Matlab web interface, and another 13.3% were from the google
> > graphical interface. Of the rest, 1 in 4 are from me.
> > --
>
>
> Very interesting. Thanks for doing the stats. This seems to throw open
> the whole question again.

No, it doesn't. CSSM is a usenet newsgroup. Period. The fact that
most users access it via a web interface does not absolve them from
conforming to usenet standards and that means interleaving and/or bottom
posting.

Interleaving and bottom posting hurts no one. Top posting hurts
traditional usenet users. Please just stick to the standard.

--
Doug Schwarz
dmschwarz&ieee,org
Make obvious changes to get real email address.

In article <1189966621.118818.24850@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
G.A.M. <x0Zero@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 1:01 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
>wrote:

>> Thus, the majority (more than 2/3) of the postings were made using
>> the Matlab web interface, and another 13.3% were from the google
>> graphical interface. Of the rest, 1 in 4 are from me.

>Very interesting. Thanks for doing the stats. This seems to throw open
>the whole question again.

What i didn't get into in my statistics is my several and various
reasons for considering that both the Google interface and the
Matlab Central interface are fairly weak interfaces for serious
technical use.

I'm somewhere up over 30,000 postings (google doesn't index
everything!), spread over somewhat diverse fields, and I have
directly worked in the field of computer-aided communications.
It is my experience that interleaved ("mid-posting") is the only
long-term viable format for technical discussions.
--
   "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
   demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers

roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in
message <fck54v$1e6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> In article
<1189966621.118818.24850@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> G.A.M. <x0Zero@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 16, 1:01 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
Roberson)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Thus, the majority (more than 2/3) of the postings were
made using
> >> the Matlab web interface, and another 13.3% were from
the google
> >> graphical interface. Of the rest, 1 in 4 are from me.
>
> >Very interesting. Thanks for doing the stats. This seems
to throw open
> >the whole question again.
>
> What i didn't get into in my statistics is my several and
various
> reasons for considering that both the Google interface and the
> Matlab Central interface are fairly weak interfaces for
serious
> technical use.
>
> I'm somewhere up over 30,000 postings (google doesn't index
> everything!), spread over somewhat diverse fields, and I have
> directly worked in the field of computer-aided communications.
> It is my experience that interleaved ("mid-posting") is
the only
> long-term viable format for technical discussions.
> --
> "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
> demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers


I have decided that I will no longer use top posting on this
newsgroup. Thanks for the replies.

I will use either bottom posting or interleaved posting,
depending on which seems more appropriate for the given message.

When I do interleaved posting, I'll follow the suggestions
given in this thread for increasing readability (extra white
space, etc.).