Re: [tlug] Better to have "bottom-posted"?

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2009-11-10 15:34 +0900 (Tue), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Followups redirected to lingo@example.com

Oh, this list is just pushing all my buttons today. Either you or the list
admins (I'm not sure which) have decided that this topic should actually
be continued on both lingo@example.com and tlug@example.com

Who am I to argue? :-)

> Thing is, as a style "top-posting" really is the combination of the
> two: inserting new text at the top *and* not trimming.  Most people on
> this list are aware that both are bad, and that of the two, trimming
> is actually more valuable to the readers....

Really? Looking back at the archives of this list to the beginning of
November, I see three top-posted messages, and eight non-top-posted ones
where the included text was significantly larger than the new text, and
much of the text was quite clearly unnecessary to understand the message
(two or three of these were just straight bottom-posts).

This is going strictly on number of posts: of course the untrimmed ones
take much more time to scroll though to get to the content than the
top-posted ones, and so it's even worse when looking at it from the
point of view of how much time the readers of this list are wasting.

The posters may be aware that trimming is more valuable, but they're
making the mistake of inadequate trimming more often. I posit that it's
"don't top-post" has become a mantra here, such that if people are going
to rember only one one of "don't top-post and trim your quotes," they're
going to remember the first and forget the second.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974
           Functional programming in all senses of the word:
                   http://www.starling-software.com