[Nottingham] Threading, top-posting, trimming (once more)

[Graeme Fowler]

Moving this into its' own thread as it has little to do with the 
original subject...

On 22/06/2006 12:07, Michael Simms wrote:
 > Personally I completely disagree. Adding information to the end is a
 > holdover from pen and paper when you added information afterwards
 > because you had no other choice... move with the times people {:-)

Well, this subject has been done to death on numerous occasions but I'll 
carry on (technically bottom-posting) after trimming irrelevant guff 
from the messages. I've said this on the list (and been agreed with) 
numerous times in the past, and generally been agreed with - but now we 
have an extra bit to consider.

 > A reply at the top is easier to read in almost all circumstances cos
 > you don't have to scroll down to get it. You know what its about
 > because you have the title of the email and you've read its thread.
 > Its also easier to write as almost all mail composers start your
 > cursor at the top.

1. Post in context
Or "don't top-post".

2. Trim irrelevant text
Think of your message as a bit of conversation - you may repeat other 
people's points but only if you've something to add|subtract|argue :)

3. Don't hijack threads - start a new one
It makes reading in context so much easier.

4. Consider the subscribers to the digest version of this list.
They'll get confusing, out-of-context, bloated digests tonight 
containing several exact copies of the same message with one or two 
additional lines around them (either top or bottom posted). They're 
almost impossible to read, and even more difficult to scan through.

As to whether you choose to have the cursor start at the top or bottom, 
with most decent mailers that's a config option. You have a choice, you 
know :)

 > Jumping on a new member for something like that makes us look like a
 > group of completely anal anoraks, which probably doesn't do our image
 > much of a favour.

Raph used to work with us ex WF/HE/PXC people, he's been flamed for less 
than that ;-)

Graeme