What does Python fix?

[Steve Lamb]

On 18 Jan 2002 00:30:48 GMT, Paul Jackson <pj at sgi.com> wrote:
> C// spoke (shouted) of:

>> ... TOP POST['ing] ...
 
> I guess this means placing one's response above the
> quoted matter to which one is responding.
 
> Does someone have a simple explanation of why such
> top posting is bad form?  I don't like it either,
> but I am unable to articulate why I don't like it.

    IIRC this is from Tom Christiansen of perl fame.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
    To send better messages, please trim and summarize what you're
    replying to, and integrate your quoted text with the body of your
    message. Don't just put everything at the end.  This isn't Jeopardy.
    People expect question-and-answer, not answer-and-question responses.


LONG STORY:

Wouldn't you like to make your messages easier for others to read and
understand?  If so, I have some news posting tips for you.  If not,
just ignore this.  (Of course, if you don't want your messages
easier to read and understand, it's not clear why you bother to
send them in the first place. :-)  I'm going to take a bit of
time to explain this, because newcomers to Usenet often lack the
cultural background were I to send a superbrief message. 

Here's the issue: you appear to have quoted the entire message to which
you were replying.  Worst of all, you have done so by merely appending
the complete message at the bottom.  Folks are used to reading the
original material first, then the follow-up.  That's why it's called a
"follow-up", you know. :-)

If all you want to do is forward a copy of the message, that's one thing,
but here you seem to have just blindly pasted the complete old message at
the end without providing any content.  This is neither a proper public
followup nor even a decent private reply.  Here's why.

First of all, this is massive overkill -- you're supposed to trim your
quoted text to only what you're replying to.  Otherwise you'll probably
violate the netiquette target quoting percentage of 50%.  See below.
This isn't really an issue of space (I know that a few bytes here and
there mean less today than 20 years go), so much as it is of integrating
your comments with the old material for continuity.

Second, putting everything at the bottom does little good.  It doesn't
provide the proper context.  It's far too late.  When you reply to
someone's content, the reason you quote the previous message is so that
you can provide some degree of contextual continuity.  The best way to
do this is to interleave what you're quoting with your responses to that
particular piece.  That means that you should provide a quoted portion,
then address what the points therein, then another quoted section, etc.
For example, here's how followup replies *should* look if you'd
like them to be more effective.

    > Joe said we should eat noodles.

    But I don't like noodles.  They are a pain to prepare -- remember
    that what started this thread was how to cook using only a microwave,
    not real cooking -- and they provide you with very little sustenance
    in the long run.  It's like eating cardboard, nutritionally speaking.

    > He also suggests adding anchovies.

    What is this fish fetish?  Not all of us like the little minnows
    with the lingering briny taste swimming around our mouths for the
    next few hours or days.  Can you imagine this on a date?  Iccccch!

Notice how in the text above, alternate quoted passages are interleaved
with new response text.  Notice also that the new text far exceeds the
old text.  This is the way it should be.

Here's an excerpt from RFC 1855, which explains why this is bad.
You can read the whole RCS at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

  - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
    summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
    enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
    sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
    Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
    postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
    response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
    helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!

If you are receiving this message in response to a news posting, please
understand that all modern newsreaders provide a mechanism to fetch
the parent article, so it is seldom necessary to quote the whole thing.
Sometimes even mail readers provide this, depending on the mail headers
and the list archival mechanism on your own system.
Here's a section from the essential netiquette guide, "A Primer
on How to Work With the Usenet Community", which is available in
news.announce.newusers.  Perhaps your service provider neglected to point
you at this newsgroup before you got swallowed up by all of Usenet.
It's not only a good read; it's critical to understanding the culture
you're now moving in.

                    Summarize What You are Following Up.

  When you are following up someone's article, please summarize the
  parts of the article to which you are responding.  This allows readers
  to appreciate your comments rather than trying to remember what the
  original article said.  It is also possible for your response to get
  to some sites before the original article.

  Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from
  the original article.  Do not include the entire article since it
  will irritate the people who have already seen it.  Even if you are
  responding to the entire article, summarize only the major points you
  are discussing.

It's even more annoying when people needlessly quote the original's
automatic trailing matter, like signatures, adverts, or disclaimers.
Please don't do that.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
    To email: Don't despair!   |  -- Lenny Nero, Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------