Re: [OT] quoting text
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:16:46 -0400, Stewart Gordon wrote: If I want to be able to see what a message is in reply to, why would I use a newsreader that doesn't offer a threaded view? I'm not saying *you* personally, I meant someone who doesn't view a newsgroup in threaded mode. Someone who does that would enjoy context in the message. I didn't think you were. I think my point applies equally to anybody who reads newsgroups. I use the preview pane. Yes, I can open multiple messages, but I prefer having the context contained within the same message. I appreciate when the poster deletes unrelated context, but I don't think I've ever been annoyed at having too much context... Maybe ... but ISTM a long message that's been blindly quoted in its entirety and in a single contiguous block seldom does justice to the definition of "context". Stewart.
Re: [OT] quoting text
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:16:46 -0400, Stewart Gordon > wrote: > >> Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:51:56 -0400, Stewart Gordon >>> wrote: >> >> If I want to read the whole message you're replying to, I can open up the mesasge you're replying to in my newsreader. >>> >>> Yes, but there are some issues there: >>> 1. the newsgroup/newsreader sometimes doesn't correctly put your message >>> as a reply to the original. >> >> Is it really happening with _my_ messages? (When a thread becomes broken >> up, how often compared to not is it due to user error?) > > I'm not sure. I see regulars all the time "start" new threads even though > they are replying to others. I'm not sure where the problem lies. It's most likely the web interface. It does that a lot. I've noticed the mailing list does it too, sometimes. But it's usually much better-behaved.
Re: [OT] quoting text
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:16:46 -0400, Stewart Gordon wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:51:56 -0400, Stewart Gordon wrote: If I want to read the whole message you're replying to, I can open up the mesasge you're replying to in my newsreader. Yes, but there are some issues there: 1. the newsgroup/newsreader sometimes doesn't correctly put your message as a reply to the original. Is it really happening with _my_ messages? (When a thread becomes broken up, how often compared to not is it due to user error?) I'm not sure. I see regulars all the time "start" new threads even though they are replying to others. I'm not sure where the problem lies. 2. You may not read messages threaded, so it might be tough to find the original message. If I want to be able to see what a message is in reply to, why would I use a newsreader that doesn't offer a threaded view? I'm not saying *you* personally, I meant someone who doesn't view a newsgroup in threaded mode. Someone who does that would enjoy context in the message. 3. You almost ALWAYS want to read the immediately responded-to message for context (i.e. quote level 1), I am annoyed when I have to close the message I was reading to read the one responded to. Especially when I am following 5 threads at once. Does Opera Mail make it as cumbersome as that? Most programs I've read newsgroups in offer two alternatives: - keeping two message windows open at once - a preview pane that can be quickly and easily changed to view a different message I use the preview pane. Yes, I can open multiple messages, but I prefer having the context contained within the same message. I appreciate when the poster deletes unrelated context, but I don't think I've ever been annoyed at having too much context... -Steve
Re: [OT] quoting text
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:51:56 -0400, Stewart Gordon wrote: If I want to read the whole message you're replying to, I can open up the mesasge you're replying to in my newsreader. Yes, but there are some issues there: 1. the newsgroup/newsreader sometimes doesn't correctly put your message as a reply to the original. Is it really happening with _my_ messages? (When a thread becomes broken up, how often compared to not is it due to user error?) 2. You may not read messages threaded, so it might be tough to find the original message. If I want to be able to see what a message is in reply to, why would I use a newsreader that doesn't offer a threaded view? 3. You almost ALWAYS want to read the immediately responded-to message for context (i.e. quote level 1), I am annoyed when I have to close the message I was reading to read the one responded to. Especially when I am following 5 threads at once. Does Opera Mail make it as cumbersome as that? Most programs I've read newsgroups in offer two alternatives: - keeping two message windows open at once - a preview pane that can be quickly and easily changed to view a different message Maybe what would be better still is some kind of split-pane view of two messages at once. Stewart.
Re: [OT] quoting text
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:51:56 -0400, Stewart Gordon wrote: Saaa wrote: I guess it depends on your style. If you respond to the entire message, then putting at the top makes sense, because then you can read the response quickly, and read the history below if you want. If I want to read the whole message you're replying to, I can open up the mesasge you're replying to in my newsreader. Yes, but there are some issues there: 1. the newsgroup/newsreader sometimes doesn't correctly put your message as a reply to the original. 2. You may not read messages threaded, so it might be tough to find the original message. 3. You almost ALWAYS want to read the immediately responded-to message for context (i.e. quote level 1), I am annoyed when I have to close the message I was reading to read the one responded to. Especially when I am following 5 threads at once. I can see arguments for both methods. I use both, but only really the second method for newsgroups. I'm not sure why, but it just feels more natural. But if you want to respond point-by-point, then going below makes sense. You can respond to each point, then have your main point at the bottomm of the message. Who would do that! Anybody who is well-educated on how to use newsgroups? Gee, I don't remember having newsgroups 101 in school :P In fact, I don't think I ever received education from anyone. I just do what feels natural, and what makes sense. My email clients always put quoted text below. However, my news client always quotes above. Below/above what? - the cursor? Yes - one or more blank lines? Yes - your signature? Yes - the message you typed, after you hit the send button? No, the quoted text appears as I type my message. I for one would like to see newsreaders that will, at least as a pref, put the cursor above the quoted text and blank lines/sig below. This sets the user ready to work down the message, trimming it down and inserting reply text where it fits. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=227376 That sounds like a feature I would use. I think another good feature would probably be to limit the quoted text to N levels (do you need 5 levels of context to make your point?). I do want to say that It doesn't bother me what people do, I just find it interesting how different social tools evolve in different directions, even when the interface is pretty much identical. -Steve
Re: [OT] quoting text
Saaa wrote: I guess it depends on your style. If you respond to the entire message, then putting at the top makes sense, because then you can read the response quickly, and read the history below if you want. If I want to read the whole message you're replying to, I can open up the mesasge you're replying to in my newsreader. But if you want to respond point-by-point, then going below makes sense. You can respond to each point, then have your main point at the bottomm of the message. Who would do that! Anybody who is well-educated on how to use newsgroups? My email clients always put quoted text below. However, my news client always quotes above. Below/above what? - the cursor? - one or more blank lines? - your signature? - the message you typed, after you hit the send button? I for one would like to see newsreaders that will, at least as a pref, put the cursor above the quoted text and blank lines/sig below. This sets the user ready to work down the message, trimming it down and inserting reply text where it fits. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=227376 Stewart.
Re: [OT] quoting text
Hello Steven, On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:40:02 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote: Just don't quote. Why include quote, if there is nothing under it? Why is it that some email clients start you out at the top of the quoted messages, and some clients go below? I guess it depends on your style. If you respond to the entire message, then putting at the top makes sense, because then you can read the response quickly, and read the history below if you want. But if you want to respond point-by-point, then going below makes sense. You can respond to each point, then have your main point at the bottomm of the message. I think that bit is the main reason. If you are not referencing something, then delete it from the quote. If you are referencing it, put your stuff below, sort of like a caption.
Re: [OT] quoting text
> I guess it depends on your style. If you respond to the entire message, > then putting at the top makes sense, because then you can read the > response quickly, and read the history below if you want. I also switch my way of reply on the type of the reply and often find it strange people quote the whole post only to reply something general. > > But if you want to respond point-by-point, then going below makes sense. > You can respond to each point, then have your main point at the bottomm of > the message. Who would do that! > > My email clients always put quoted text below. However, my news client > always quotes above. > > Someone should do a study... Don't tell me nobody did that already . .
