|
|
Posted by Ian Gregory on 10/08/53 11:36
On 2006-01-05, NRen2k5 <napsterneorenegade@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer top-posting, because it's most convenient to read that way. If
> you're on a good news server, it's unlikely that you'll miss posts and
> be bothered by this.
If you are reading posts from a thread sequentially then it is
indeed quicker if you don't have to scroll past acres of quoted
material to get to the response, but in this scenario there is
no need to quote at all, you might as well save bandwidth and
storage by not including any quoted material, whether above or
below your response.
However, anything other than the simplest thread will have multiple
subthreads, so when you reach the end of one subthread you will
suddenly loose context when you jump to a response to something
that occured way back in the thread. At this point it is extremely
helpful to have relevent quoted material at the top of the post to
establish context. And anyway, posts are not necessarily read in
sequence and it may be very inconvenient to root around looking
for a precursor post (it may have expired on the server etc).
This is why it is always better for the author to follow the
guidelines and include just enough quoted material before the
response in order to establish context. Not the whole article
of course - that is annoying too, but having to scroll down to
establish context and then back up to read the response is a
royal pain in the ass.
Ignoring 25 years of cumulative wisdom because you think you
know better when you are clearly an inexperienced noob is just
plain arrogant. As is posting articles in a way that suits the
way you would want to see them instead of the way your audience
wants to see them.
Chef: Why do all you guys sit on your helmets?
Soldier: So we don't get our balls blown off.
Apocalypse now (1979)
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|