While you and your peers may think it polite to bottom-post, not all user
Could you explain to me who my "peers" are? Do you think I hang out with The
Bottom-Posting Gang or something?
groups agree with that. Many of us consider it IMpolite to bottom-post, as
it is confusing, and a hassle for us to read your messages. An RFC, ideal,
or whatever written by one group really means absolutely nothing to another
group. You cannot make the mistake of treating EVERYONE who uses the
The RFC is designed for etiquette and making messages easier to read. Since
it's a "Request for Comments", you could always comment on it and get it
changed. Unless you're feeling conspiracy-theory minded and believe that
some unseen cabal has written these rules purely to annoy you.
Maybe it wasn't put together by an "average Internet user", but it was put
together by people who had been having discussions on newsgroups, etc (there
were 1,000 comments on the RFC when last I looked) about what was the best
and most efficient way of responding in their experiences.
Of course, if etiquette is just about some arbitrary series of rules and the
"tech guys" just telling the "layman" what they should do, YOU WON'T MIGHT
IF I SHOUT THE REST OF THIS MESSAGE. I'M SURE IT'LL BE AS EASY TO READ. Oh
wait, it's not.
internet as being the same "type" of user as yourself... there are many
"types". I'm not trying to discriminate against any "group", just realize
that there are different groups of internet users that behave in different
ways. This may be hard for people to understand, but one person's view of
etiquette is not necessarily another's view.
Indeed. I'm from England and my most immediate friends are English, Welsh,
Scottish, Irish (Northern and Southern), Greek, Italian, Indian, Pakistani,
German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, South African and Australian. You know
what? They all, I don't know... behave slightly differently from each other.
Astonishing. I also find it quite easy to understand that there's this big
group of people on the Internet called "Americans", for example. They talk
differently, spell differently and everything, too. It's amazing. What a
weird and wacky world we live in, full of these "differences" of which you
speak.
This new embracing of differences is good, though. However, just in case
you've forgotten, the thread you started is called "signature placement is
dumb" and you described bottom posting in your original message as "just
plain stupid". You have effectively gone to France and told them that their
cheek-kissing is "IMpolite", far inferior to the US handshaking ritual and,
to re-iterate, "just plain stupid".
My response was merely to point out that cheek-kissing has its advantages in
France and that when in France, you're supposed to do as the French do. You
can perhaps argue that handshaking has greater virtues and people in France
don't kiss on the cheek any more, at least judging by your friends at the
Ex-Pats party, but that's a different matter.
The RFC you referred to wasn't written by the average internet user. It
wasn't written by any "society". The real here "RFC" isn't something on
paper, it's the way the majority of people feel/act. Like you said, that is
"...what etiquette is supposed to be: The rules put together by society on
how to behave...". Bill Gates isn't a society. Neither is Jacob Neilsen. Nor
are faqs.org or
www.caliburn.nl.
Much of everyday etiquette is learned behaviour, rather than rules (in
comparison to true Etiquette, which unless you were born into High Society,
is very much something that has to be taught). What many people believe is
"natural" and "right" is what they've seen and got used to. Top-posting is
popular mainly because it is the default behaviour in Outlook Express and
Outlook and most people either don't know how to change it or choose not to.
My hazy recollections of email clients before then is that they all tried to
enforce bottom-posting. So top-posting is an etiquette that has been
determined by Microsoft, effectively. Had Outlook's default been
bottom-posting, I'm pretty sure this discussion would be moot.
Similarly, whether lots of people use frames in web sites is immaterial to
whether it's actually a Good Thing or not. Most first-time web designers use
frames move on to Flash intros, etc, because it's what they've seen and
associated with being professional. Doesn't mean that they're right. Doesn't
mean those web sites couldn't be improved.
...And there's the beauty of top-posting... with top posting, you don't NEED
to edit anything out. It's effectively "edited out" for you (automatically)
by the simple fact that all of the "old" text is PLACED BELOW the new stuff.
When the reader opens a top-posted email, they...
1st: read the NEW relevant information (aka the reply)
2nd: come to the signature line, which signifies the end of the new
information
3rd: they then have the OPTION of reviewing any/all of the previous
information as needed
Readers can clearly see the delineation between the new info and the old,
from the placement of the signature and by the indented "old" text.
Well, let's have a think about that. Maybe your email messages are less
discursive, in which case top-posting does have its advantages. But what do
you do if you want to respond to a long email, point by point, for example.
If it's a reply to a reply to a reply, how do you know who wrote what, once
one or more people join the conversation?
If we're talking about usability and different Internet sub-groups,
incidentally, then studies have shown that US email users tend to use it as
a replacement for the phone, to fire off short responses, usually in an
informal manner. European email users, however, tend to regard it as a
replacement for the letter (less so for the TXTing generation). So maybe
top-posting works better in the first context, but not so much in the
second.
This, of course, leads to the inherent FLAW of bottom-posting... people's
tendency to be "lazy" and *NOT* edit out all of the extraneous info when
bottom-posting. While YOU seem to be very good at weeding out the junk, most
are not (especially common users). While the IDEA of bottom-posting may be
good, the implementation of it is not, because it requires users to take an
extra step (bad usability).
Isn't the point of etiquette to improve things and to take consideration of
others needs? Holding doors open for people is harder than letting them just
slam in their faces, but isn't it the better thing to do? Are we now
changing etiquette to become "whatever takes the least effort"?
The _intent_ of bottom posting + editing is to make the reader's life
easier. Maybe top posting without editing makes the _sender's_ life easier,
but that's not the point.
Also, top-posting is easier when you're just firing back exchanges of
information and can't be bothered to delete previous data. But it's harder
as soon as you start interacting with the contents of the previous mail
since you have to scroll down to read, then scroll back up to write, scroll
down further to read more, then scroll back up again to write more.
The recipient then has to read the new message. If they can work out and
remember what each point is about, fine. If they can't, they have to scroll
down and down and down and down, then maybe back up, then down again. All
these things are extra steps. You only really get a usability advantage with
top-posting in brief exchanges.
I have no problems with anyone's opinions, so I'm not flaming you in any way
at all. I guess I'm just sick of hearing "techie-type" people trying to
dictate to the layman on how they "should" be doing something. That's just
nonsense.
Hmm. You're a "technical person in a technical career" writing about how
people should really top-post. I'm a journalist. For the sake of irony,
would you like to re-read and have a think about that last paragraph. ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
We've probably exhausted this topic now...
