Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sig] PLEASE clip those posts!

Expand Messages
  • Jenn Ridley
    On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:42:06 -0700, Amy Tubbs ... -- Vitasha that s not the problem. Proper message threading is a solved problem.
    Message 1 of 7 , May 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:42:06 -0700, Amy Tubbs <ivanova.doch@...>
      wrote:

      >If you're going to top post (which is bad enough) PLEASE for the love
      >of GOD clip the bloody post below.

      >I've been scrolling through line after line after line after line of
      >quoted and re-quoted (and sometimes RE-re-quoted) text to get to the
      >next piece of new material.
      >
      >Effingham
      >>
      >> You might be interested in using Gmail for your email. Gmail stacks all
      >> the messages from one thread on top of each other. Once you have read it,
      >> it shrinks it to just the header, and when a new email in that thread comes
      >> in, it puts it on top in its full format so you know that you have not yet
      >> read that message. I love it!

      -- Vitasha

      that's not the problem. Proper message threading is a solved problem.

      The problem is when the *new* message comes in with the full contents
      of every other message in the thread still inside it. For example,
      when I replied to this message, I trimmed the 20 or so lines of Yahoo!
      cruft off the bottom of it. (OH yeah, and put in the context --
      trimming the cruft off the bottom does no good if you don't leave in
      the context.)

      Last week I got a message that was over 300 lines long, and there were
      *FOUR* lines of new information. And a flock of 150+ line messages
      that had *TWO* lines of new information. And mulitple iterations of
      the Yahoo!Groups text.

      I know that Yahoo! does not have bottom-posting as the default (when
      you open a reply window, the input cursor is at the top of the box),
      but it's really not that hard to scroll down to the bottom and snip
      out all the Yahoo!Groups information -- it's added to every single
      post, and there's no reason to have six or seven iterations of it in a
      message. If people would at least do *that*, life would be much
      easier.

      stasia

      --
      Anastasia Emilianova
      Jenn Ridley : jridley@...
    • Sasha
      I am an avid member of over 20 lists... every once in a while there is a cry to trim posts... it never solves anything and it always continues... it is just a
      Message 2 of 7 , May 22, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I am an avid member of over 20 lists... every once in a while there is a
        cry to trim posts... it never solves anything and it always continues... it
        is just a fact of life.

        I personally trim my posts, but it is a necessary evil of being on mailing
        lists.

        Gmail does help a lot! I highly recommend it to anyone on mailing lists as
        it makes it FAR easier to follow a conversation and kills all the extra
        stuff for you.

        Sasha


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Enzinas
        ... the solution that Vitasha is talking about is built into the gmail. It s not threading. Gmail auto-collapses the quoted text so it is not seen by the
        Message 3 of 7 , May 22, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Jenn Ridley <jridley@...> wrote:
          >>> You might be interested in using Gmail for your email.  Gmail stacks all
          >>> the messages from one thread on top of each other.  Once you have read it,
          >>> it shrinks it to just the header, and when a new email in that thread comes
          >>> in, it puts it on top in its full format so you know that you have not yet
          >>> read that message.  I love it!
          >
          > -- Vitasha
          >
          > that's not the problem.  Proper message threading is a solved problem.
          >
          > The problem is when the *new* message comes in with the full contents
          > of every other message in the thread still inside it.  For example,
          > when I replied to this message, I trimmed the 20 or so lines of Yahoo!
          > cruft off the bottom of it.  (OH yeah, and put in the context --
          > trimming the cruft off the bottom does no good if you don't leave in
          > the context.)

          the solution that Vitasha is talking about is built into the gmail.
          It's not threading. Gmail auto-collapses the quoted text so it is not
          seen by the reader. Personally, I like to have the previous messages
          in the messasge as it allows me to easily see the trail that lead to
          the state of things. In fact, in my opinion, "top posting" is even
          more useful when you have such automatic formatting and makes inline
          responses a more annoying method of response.

          --j
        • Suzanne
          I completely endorse the plea for trimming posts. But is there a group preference for top-posting or not? Years ago, on another list, I was told in no
          Message 4 of 7 , May 22, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I completely endorse the plea for trimming posts. But is there a group preference for top-posting or not?

            Years ago, on another list, I was told in no uncertain terms that the one correct way to reply was to trim the first message down to the relevant few sentences and then top-post your answer. I still do this... but has internet etiquette evolved without me? [Entirely possible, I admit!] Or is it just that the display modes of various e-mail services are somewhat incompatible?

            Enquiring minds want to know!
            Susanna

            --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Bryant <anthony_bryant@...> wrote:
            >
            > People, for God's sake.
            >
            > If you're going to top post (which is bad enough) PLEASE for the love
            > of GOD clip the bloody post below.
            >
            > I've been scrolling through line after line after line after line of
            > quoted and re-quoted (and sometimes RE-re-quoted) text to get to the
            > next piece of new material.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Effingham
            >
          • Rod Giffin
            Sigh. My two cents. In fact there are several correct ways to reply to messages. Top posting is only one such way. For some inflexible people it s like a
            Message 5 of 7 , May 22, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Sigh. My two cents.

              In fact there are several "correct" ways to reply to messages. Top
              posting is only one such way. For some inflexible people it's like a
              religion. I suspect you ran into one of those years ago. Inline
              replies and even bottom posting are like a religion to other
              inflexible people. None of these is the "correct" way to reply.

              You can use top posting when you are adding to a conversation. You
              can use inline replies when you are discussing points that are already
              made. If you put inline lines directly under the point a previous
              author made, it makes it possible to follow the discussion,
              especially if the discussion becomes complex, and prevents you from
              having to make repetative references in the text of your reply when
              you're answering each specific point that you respond to. Neither
              form should be required. Just make your answer clear, and the
              point(s) you're replying to clear, to avoid confusion.

              It is always good etiquette to trim un-necessary text from your reply,
              but inline replies are perfectly fine for most normal people, and they
              don't care if you top post instead. Good etiquette again would be to
              cut un-necessary text from your reply. You can leave the reference
              to who you are answering, and any sentient text to which you are
              replying, in order to avoid other people from having to search for
              prior messages in order to figure out what you're talking about.
              That's good netetiquette. Anything else would just invite me, and
              others, to think your shorts are a few sizes too small.


              On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Suzanne <sovagris@...> wrote:
              > I completely endorse the plea for trimming posts.  But is there a group preference for top-posting or
              > not?
              >
              > Years ago, on another list, I was told in no uncertain terms that the one correct way to reply was to trim the first message down to the relevant few sentences and then top-post your answer.  I still do this... but has internet etiquette evolved without me?  [Entirely possible, I admit!]  Or is it just that the display modes of various e-mail services are somewhat incompatible?
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.