|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Email ettiquette (was RE: windows won't detect my ipod)Re: Email ettiquette (was RE: windows won't detect my ipod)
From: Rocker <rocker_at_shaw.ca>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:48:56 -0700 Hi, Well I might as well chime in here. Being blind, I prefer top posting. and I'll tell you why: I get a little tired of reading the same snips over and over when a particular subject explodes into a very long thread just to get to a comment at the bottom of a post which, in many cases is only a sentence or two in length. Then, you go through it all again when reading the nest message in the discussion topic and so on. Conclusion, I like bottom posting for those threads with short questions and answers like: On March 2, 2007 _at_ 8:41 PM, Mountain Standard Time, Northern hemisphere, rocker writes:: Why hasn't Jourg posted to the list in months? rocker answers: He's to busy creating the mini speech synth for rockbox. (grin) I don't really mind Top posting for lengthy discussions such as this. Back to the bat cave...rocker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Hevenstone" <jimmyrrpage_at_gmail.com> To: <christof_at_infinitus.co.uk>; "Rockbox" <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:14 PM Subject: Re: Email ettiquette (was RE: windows won't detect my ipod) I top-post, myself (I'm doing that here). And I do that for two reasons: 1. It's easier for me 2. I use Gmail, which sets top-post by default, and it's easier to read on Gmail with top-posting. To me, the bottom-posting on emails gets really confusing, because of the way previous emails are quoted. And no, I'm not blind or anything. It's just easier that way. Like Chris said: I'd rather see the reply and then the original message rather than the other way around, mainly because, when reading a new email, it's for the reply, not the message the sender is replying to. On 3/2/07, Christopher Woods <christof_at_infinitus.co.uk> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matthew Caron [mailto:matt_at_mattcaron.net] > > Sent: 03 March 2007 02:16 > > To: Rockbox > > Subject: Re: Email ettiquette (was RE: windows won't detect my ipod) > > > > Actually, on a completely different topic and mostly from a > > social commentary perspective, I've noticed this quite a bit > > in my transition from engineering/tech focused fields to > > having more dealings with management. I used to be a firmware > > engineer to a printer company, then a consultant writing > > .NET, now I write Perl and PHP for an insurance company. It > > seems like the further you get away from hackers and the more > > you get towards non-computer folks (product managers, > > engineers from other disciplines, my mother, etc.), the more > > people simply can't handle inline comments and what we > > consider "proper" use of email. > > Hence, they top-post, quote incorrectly, are imprecise in > > their use of language and explanations, etc. The thing is, I > > can't figure out why - I try and explain why these approaches > > are better, and they seem to make an effort, and end up just > > getting more confused. It must be some difference in the way > > they think vs. the way I think. > > > Interesting this; it's something I've noticed a lot on all the lists I > participate in. Personally, I top-post when replying to emails or lists > where it's not minded (where, say, the list admin top posts himself and so > it's not minded that much) but I do try to make the effort to reply below > the message on lists like this where I know there's a lot more users who > do > it the 'classical' way. ;) I find top-posted replies easier to read, it's > quicker, for me anyway, to view an entire conversation just based on > jumping > to each email received in chronological order with the same topic. Just > about everybody I speak to in emails and correspond with top-posts, I > think > it's just one of those things people do because it's quicker - and, for me > at least, there's no appreciable downsides to doing it, because you do > have > the original message below the reply for clarity or context should you > wish > to read it (instead of having to skip all the way past it to view the > response). Those few seconds per message can really add up if you're going > through a lot of emails... > > It's the classic 'old skool vs. nu skool' debate once again - I guess I'm > in > the nu skool camp of email users insofar as method in which I write my > replies :) And no, I'm not blind, just eternally short of time, and yes, > I've also considered that top-posting is more beneficial for the > partially-sighted and blind people on lists such as this (which is why I'd > do it all the time if I knew that it wouldn't rile people as much as it > seems to do). > > For me, it's not so much as a "can't handle inline commenting" issue, I > will > do that if the need arises (say, I'm replying to many points through a > lengthy email) but for short responses, I can't really see much point in > replying below the original message. I scan through my list of emails in > Outlook, I click on one and it displays in the autopreview pane below the > message list, I read the reply, I move on - having to skip chunks of > original text wastes time imho and is a behaviour which is declining in > usage (maybe for the best, in the grand scheme of things, change is good), > at least from what I see. It makes no perceivable difference to the > behaviour of email clients (like Outlook and gmail, where you can organise > things into conversations) - it does that based on the date and the email > title, so putting the original message before your reply seems a bit > pointless these days. > > Thoughts? Obvious pros/cons for top/bottom posting? > > -- See Me at my YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/jimmyRRpage Please comment!Received on 2007-03-03 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |