Post Efficiently
Bertho Boman
If the quoted text is included at the end of your messages instead of
the beginning, it will significantly increase the speed of reading
news. If you are a fast reader, it might even double it.
If the quoted text is in front and the quote is more than one screen
length, one must take the mouse, click in the text window, click on the
scroll down arrow one or more times or go back to the key board and push
the page down key to finally see the new text. Thereafter, back with
the mouse and click in the message select window to select the next
message.
If the new text is in front, all that is needed is to push the down
arrow and each message can be read in sequence, no mousing around, and
irrelevant content can be skipped quickly.
I realize that it logically makes sense to first include the quoted text
and then the answer but we are all very busy and in most cases we know
the previous text anyhow.
Bertho Boman
Vinland Corporation
DS
In article <34FAA9...@vinland.com>, Bertho Boman <bo...@vinland.com>
[snip]
>
>I realize that it logically makes sense to first include the quoted text
>and then the answer but we are all very busy and in most cases we know
>the previous text anyhow.
Hi Bertho,
It is the Usenet standard to reply to the parts you quote underneath the
quote. This is because, as you rightly point out, it makes sense.
Many newsreader programs use the space bar to move down a screen at a
time and to the next unread message when the end of the current one is
reached. This is usually a lot quicker than using the mouse.
Netscape does not seem to do the "skip to the next unread post" bit but
does scroll down using the space bar.
Perhaps you would be better off using an offline newsreader which will
also filter, sort & delete posts using custom rules if required (among
other things). There are several available including free ones (with
reduced features normally). Forte's Agent & Free Agent spring to mind.
--
DS
David Ness
I had a long argument on this with the folks in the NetScape newsgroup
a while back. While I agree with your position in general, they
argued that it was an issue for `newsgroup standards' (i.e. each
newsgroup adopts its own practice).
It seems to me that the `core' issue is whether Newsgroup circulation
is reliable and timely enough so that you usually have the earlier
messages to which some response is directed. If you do, then Top
posting makes the most sense, while if you do not, Bottom posting
wins.
As News delivery gets more timely and reliable, we would then expect
Top posting to become more and more `the rule'...
Bertho Boman wrote:
>
> If the quoted text is included at the end of your messages instead of
> the beginning, it will significantly increase the speed of reading
> news. If you are a fast reader, it might even double it.
>
> If the quoted text is in front and the quote is more than one screen
> length, one must take the mouse, click in the text window, click on the
> scroll down arrow one or more times or go back to the key board and push
> the page down key to finally see the new text. Thereafter, back with
> the mouse and click in the message select window to select the next
> message.
>
> If the new text is in front, all that is needed is to push the down
> arrow and each message can be read in sequence, no mousing around, and
> irrelevant content can be skipped quickly.
>
> I realize that it logically makes sense to first include the quoted text
> and then the answer but we are all very busy and in most cases we know
> the previous text anyhow.
>
> Bertho Boman
> Vinland Corporation
Phil Passmore
>If the quoted text is included at the end of your messages instead of
>the beginning, it will significantly increase the speed of reading
>news. If you are a fast reader, it might even double it.
>I realize that it logically makes sense to first include the quoted text
>and then the answer but we are all very busy and in most cases we know
>the previous text anyhow.
>
>Bertho Boman
>Vinland Corporation
Usenet convention tends to having the quoted text before the new
posting. I for one like it this way, and will continue to post in this
manner. This is not to criticise your request, and I can cope with reading
posts in either format.
--
Phil Passmore PPL(A)
Dave Martindale
The most important thing in making your post easily readable is to
remove as much of the previous article as possible, leaving only enough
of it quoted so the reader can understand the context of your article.
If the amount quoted from the previous article is small, it doesn't matter
whether it goes at the beginning or the end.
As long as that has been done, I find that I prefer articles that alternate
quoted material and responses, rather that putting all of the quotes either
at the beginning or the end. It reads more like a discussion, and it is
always clear which point in the previous article each section of the new
article is referring to.
Dave
Robert Harmon
And I for one do not read the message if the quoted text extends past
the first "page." My time is valuable (>2 cents) and I figure that
whoever posted the response just wanted to waste my time. If short
quotes ore used (with a reply below them) that I will read. But a
100 line quote and a 1 line "me too" is the reason I have developed
this.
Phil Passmore wrote in message ...
>
>Usenet convention tends to having the quoted text before the new
>posting. I for one like it this way, and will continue to post in
this
>manner. This is not to criticise your request, and I can cope with
reading
>posts in either format.
>--
>Phil Passmore PPL(A)
Robert Harmon
reha...@swbell.net
-----
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed
out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it
was passed." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June 12,
1823,
found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
-----
TSRA Life & NRA Life
Tyler Groo
Bertho Boman <bo...@vinland.com> wrote:
> If the quoted text is included at the end of your messages instead of
> the beginning, it will significantly increase the speed of reading
> news. If you are a fast reader, it might even double it.
OTOH, it might cut your comprehension in half... I hate trailing context
quotes *almost* as much as untrimmed quoting of entire preceding messages
(actually, maybe even more now that I think of it).
It better suits me -- as if anyone cares <g> -- when: 1) quoted text is
trimmed to provide only enough context needed to comprehend the response,
and 2) quoted text precedes a response or 3) quoted snippets are
interspersed when multiple points are responded to. How do I put a snipped
quote into a trailing context? The RPN equivalent of written
communication? If you're too busy to read what I have to say in context,
I'd just as soon you didn't read my posts anyway.
Make your message window bigger. Use arrow keys to navigate instead of
mouse commands. I can see the drag if you read usenet on a pager or
something. Otherwise I guess you're stuck with the unsympathetic version
of the Golden Rule -- you get treated the way I'd like to be treated,
whether you appreciate it or not.
MVO -t
Tyler Groo, EMT-B | Rager Emergency Services (RES)
"Don't blame them | 171500 Beaver Creek Rd., Paulina, OR 97751
for what I think." | (541) 477-3162/477-3713
BLS ambulance serving parts of Crook/Grant/Wheeler/Harney Counties
David L. Wilson
Though really spending too much time on this off-topic
subject, I thought I would put in my two cents worth.
The people who quote first usually do so with a purpose.
They quote to clarify to the reader what they are
responding to so that the reader can follow the thought.
(A few do include too long or an un-necessary quotes.)
Every single post or e-mail that I have seen with the
quote following the new material should not have included
the quote at all. It was not needed, probably never
read and the poster needs to realize that and delete
these. This is even true of posts to this thread
where the un-needed quote and signature with long quotes
have been three times the length of the actual post being
made.
*That* is not efficient. It uses peoples memory, download
time, and their own time. (Many probably do not read the tail
of those post when they realize what they are.) And some
people get news via digest form as e-mail with limited
mailbox size. (It is for these same reasons that binary
files in non-binary newsgroups are strongly discouraged.)
With apologies to any the above upset who take it personally
--it was not meant to criticize any individual but comment
from my perspective. Careful quoting and responding is the
only sensible choice.
--
dlwi...@erols.com
The above are my view and not those of my employer.
Dave Martindale
dwi...@nvl.army.mil writes:
>The people who quote first usually do so with a purpose.
>They quote to clarify to the reader what they are
>responding to so that the reader can follow the thought.
Another way I think of this: A well-written article takes *time* to
write. Some of the effort in writing is organizing thoughts (including
quoting previous articles) so that the point of the current article
can be rapidly read and understood by the reader. Writing should take
a lot more time than reading the same article.
So if I see an article that looks like it was carefully written, with
paragraphs and quotes interspersed with new text, I'll generally read it.
The converse is that if I see an article that looks like it was written
in a few seconds, or with little care about the reader (no paragraph
breaks, almost all quote with little new material), I figure that it
isn't *worth* spending much time reading either.
And if the first page that appears on my screen is nothing but quote,
with no new material at all, I figure that it's unlikely that the
new text will be worth reading if I took the time to find it. So
I just skip to the next article.
This works for me, anyway.
Dave
Christopher Davis
DM> == Dave Martindale <da...@cs.ubc.ca>
DM> Another way I think of this: A well-written article takes *time* to
DM> write. Some of the effort in writing is organizing thoughts
DM> (including quoting previous articles) so that the point of the
DM> current article can be rapidly read and understood by the reader.
DM> Writing should take a lot more time than reading the same article.
Exactly. The post will be written only once, while it will be read
(hopefully) many times, by many people. A small investment of time by
the author to make the post clear yet concise will pay off over the
lifetime of the article. (If it's really good, the lifetime will be
extended by people who save the message, print it out and tape it to
their refrigerator, or look it up in DejaNews.)
--
Christopher Davis <c...@kei.com> <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
Geographic locations in DNS! <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/dns-loc/ >