>An explaination why top-post is easier to read:
>When I am viewing an e-mail, the reply is the main part of the message
and
>I usually quite aware of what the original post is. So I should be able
to
>see the reply when I open the message.
And if the message is edited down correctly, it likely will be.
>If the message is bottom post, I will have to scroll down and down to
find
>where the author really start to say something. If the reply starts on
line
>1000 while the messages ends on line 2000 it will be quite difficult to
>know line 1000 is the start of reply and I should read from that line.
Uhhh, 1000 lines of quoted-text needs some *serious* editing. I try to
only include directly-relevant sections of text; if someone needs to
see all 1000 previous messages to follow the thread, he's welcome to go
and get those messages.
Top quoting is okay for things that don't require any brainpower, like
Okay, sounds good.
>I was in the mood for pizza, if you wouldn't mind.
>>Yeah, I was a little hungry. Where do you want to go?
>>>Anyone up for lunch?
and that's it.
Look at all the reply/text/reply/text/reply/text sections in just *this*
email. Were you asking a technical question of multiple parts, it would
be easy to follow each little "subthread" in the email. With
top-posting, I'm *NOT* going to constantly scroll down then back up to
make sure I addressed each and every issue.
(Not intended to sound snarky or addressed to you specifically, but to
The Reader in general...) Quite simply, if it's too much of a bother
for you to properly format email, then it's too much of a bother for
*me* to answer completely. It's that simple. Worse, you don't know
which bundled-together paragraph in the top-posted reply belongs to
which section in the quoted text below, and that's *if* I choose to
address more than one issue in my reply. If I see that it would require
replies to multiple sections of quoted text, I'm more likely than not to
get frustrated with how much extra work would be required to "plan" my
reply to make it clear for you to read (lacking any locational context
as to what part of the reply belongs with which section in the quoted
text), and simply not reply at all.
>While for the top-post, I know the first line is the start of reply and
I
>can read the reply without any difficulty. In an active forum, threads
>grown long quickly, with top-post, we focus on what the message saids
and
>waste no time.
And if 90% of the entire message is quoted text that's never even looked
at, why include it at all? Again, that's the laziness of peoples'
refusal to properly edit their replies.
>Write top-post or bottom-post makes no difference for me, the problem
is
>that I found bottom-post is harder to read since I will have to skim
all
>"original messages" before I could read the actual reply.
Again, it's a lack of editing (ie, laziness) that creates this
"problem", *NOT* bottom-quoting in general.
>Well, since no one could convice another, I'll stick to the "community
>rule".
That'd work...
