Re: Posting format

From: Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com>
To: "Robert L. Harris" <Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net>
Cc: Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>,
	bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Posting format
Date: 24 Jul 2003 11:42:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1059068534.1668.253.camel@spc9.esa.lanl.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030724171553.GK32585@rdlg.net>

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 11:15, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> Thus spake Steven Cole (elenstev@mesatop.com):
> 
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > > [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
[snipped]
> > > 
> > > > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > > > scroll up.
> > > 
> > > Ever actually tried doing that?  IMHO it's not half as practical and
> > > natural as reading from the top down.  (You have to keep scrolling,
> > > searching for block starts.)
> > 
> > I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.
> > 
> > Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
> > to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
> > languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.  
> > 
[more snippage]
> 
> I'm not saying you should write your paragraphs backwards such as your
> Cafe sign.  It's more of an organizational thing than an order of
> reading thing.  When I sort my ToDo list I put the things most important
> on top, when I sort my mail, I put the things I need to read on top,
> etc.  This way the most important piece (the newest comment in this
> case) is on top and I don't have to go digging for it.

Reverse chronological lists are another example of where top
agglutination provides convenience. But the lower, earlier part remains
and doesn't get snipped.  It doesn't seem to be the same as a multi-way
conversation where earlier parts become irrelevant to later parts.

> 
> Not everyone puts inline responses and they're not always needed.  If
> you place some a good idea is one a co-worker uses:
> 
>   See inline comments below.
> 
> 4 works, 1 line.  Tells us there is content he added mixed in.
> Otherwise I don't have to waste time and effort digging through the
> rants, flames and fluff wondering "is there something down here?"...

The ease of tacking on your comment to the top means that you will not
be motivated to snip all the "rants, flames and fluff" below, so all
that (usually) irrelevant flotsam gets sent over and over again.

At home, I'm on a 56k dialup, and getting the days worth of lkml
messages takes a while.  Cutting down on unnecessary verbage which can
easily be retrieved if needed is definitely appreciated.  

Steven