Re: [Hampshire] Benefits of top-posting?

Dr Adam J Trickett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not trying to start a flame war and I don't want to know about
> bottom or bottom/interleaved posting, but I'd like to know from
> people what are the actual benefits if any of top posting.
>
> Everyone at work top posts and it drives me mad trying to figure
> out what they are saying on complex emails, but everyone also says
> it's the norm, and question why I bottom post.
>
> I can see the following:
>
> * It's easy for short answers where you are answering to the subject
> line, and there is pretty much no content.
>
> * It's lazy/easy because it's the default behaviour of Lookout.
>
> * Everyone else does it: it's the convention.
>
> However I can't really see the point as it stands. The people who like
> to top-post what is the benefit to you, why do you do it?

I believe conventions exist, for several reasons.

I top post in private emails, or usually in emails with people who I
know are not used to using in line comments - which is almost
everyone. Mostly because of convention - and the recipient would not
understand that I had bottom posted!

The advantage of top posting is that since I am fully aware of the
simple contents of an original email(s), there is no need for anyone
to have to page down or scroll down perhaps a long way to (my) simple
reply. 'Simple' is the key here. Anything more complex and top
posting becomes counterproductive. In those cases I say 'Hi there, see
in line comments below' or similar as a top post initially. The other
advantage is sheer convention - the other person would get confused if
I bottom posted! Also I note that with online mail (web mail) it can
be tedious to scroll down to the bottom of a long original mail to
see a short response, and many people use webmail now.

When working as an employee in large companies a while back, it was
conventional to top post. IIRC using Lotus Notes (15 years ago?)
earlier correspondence was available in a current email as something
like attachments. Earlier stuff was handled as separate documents each
in its own right. This could be important legally for example. Only on
very rare occasions did people use in line comments - where bottom
posting would be functionally important. Most emails were like a paper
letter, an entity complete, to be referred to on a rare occasion, and
not as a dynamic bundle of information to be orchestrated using inline
comments. When receiving an email, the exact context was easy to
appreciate or previously well known.

In technical subject discussion groups or forums, the content is
usually complex, and inline comments (or detailed comments anyway) are
functionally useful and usually important. The context of each posting
is often unknown, and people (like myself) are subscribed to many
discussions list and groups. Convention has been created for bottom
posting where a logical follow on is likely - that is - in discussion
groups where the detailed logic is very important.

The opposite convention has been created for environments where the
norm is a simple snail mail like exchange of mails between a couple of
people or a group who almost never bother with (logical detail)
comments or inline comments. I believe that in these environments, the
use of this convention is a signal that both the users are sending
content with a low complexity and or they are not using email
discussion techniques efficiently.

I note some marginal situations - a medical support group I run -
users are non techie, often in pain, and frequently top post. No
convention is stated. No one complains at all. About top or bottom
posting anyway. A motorhome interest group I use - the stated
convention is bottom, posting, but there is a large and un complained
about top post mix. The subject matter is 50% chat an d50% serious
detail. People seem to be tolerant and use large snips to continue
with bottom posting if it is necessary.
--
alan cocks
Kubuntu user#10391