[erlang-questions] Announcing Erlang.org Code of Conduct
Fri Mar 27 07:23:39 CET 2015
Blaming top posts when somebody mixes top posts and inline comments, in
a difficult to realize manner, is perhaps unfair. Could it not be the
inline part that is wrong, instead?
In the end I think that it is the quality of the post, even if it is a
top post, that has the final say.
Given a background of no problems with heavily edited quotes and inline
comments I understand that such an experience would make one like that
practice. My experience is not one of those. I would prefer no editing
of what I have written. It is therefore I top post. Do unto others etc.
On 03/26/2015 04:07 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> On 25/03/2015, at 8:14 pm, Bengt Kleberg <> wrote:
>> To me the good part with top posting is the knowledge that nobody is editing the quoted part.
> But how do you *get* that knowledge?
> The mere fact that something looks like a top posting
> is no guaranteed that the quoted material hasn't been
> Nor do I believe that editing per se is in any way
> wrong or unhelpful. As long as quoted material is
> clearly quoted, and is not distorted, reducing it
> is *helpful*. It directs the reader's attention to
> the part(s) that the 2nd poster is actually responding to.
>> To trawl carefully through the quoted content in a top post message looking for added content is futile. If there is more content it is not a top post.
> Yes, but it's not as if top posts arrived in purple
> and inline annotation arrived in green. You can't be
> *sure* that a top post *is* a top post until you have
> My memory may be deceiving me, but I believe I've seen
> several messages in this very list where I nearly missed
> some additional comment because it started out *looking*
> like a top post.
>> There might be statistics that show how top posters write with less effort than inline commentors. That I have not heard of it does not prove anything. But I much prefer a effortless email that is helpful,
> One of the arguments that has been made in this thread,
> and not as far as I know disputed, is that many people
> these days top-post without thinking about it because
> many modern MUAs make top-posting particularly easy.
> (For what it's worth, I am using Apple Mail version
> 7.3 (1878.6), released last year, and in-line annotation
> is perfectly straightforward. But I have inadequate
> knowledge of other modern MUAs to make general claims.)
> It is conceivable that such messages might be helpful;
> I have no statistics on this either. Only anecdotal
> evidence that I've seen top-posted messages in several
> mailing lists that their authors followed up with an
> "oops, sorry, I didn't fully read what I was responding to."
> I don't recall seeing such follow-ups for inline-annotated
> messages. That's just an impression from a memory that's
> like a sieve with holes in it.
> It would be interesting if someone with time on their hands
> investigated to see if top posted messages *were* noticeably
> helpful. And it's not as if it were the least bit *hard* to
> annotate in-line.
> To me, one issue is that in-line annotation provides
> evidence that the person writing the new comments has
> at least given every part of the message they are
> responding to a chance to pass by their eyeballs; they
> might just possibly have read it.
> There is also the helpfulness issue that each item of
> reply is right next to the thing it's a reply *to*;
> this makes it much easier for me to understand an
> inline-annotated message than a top-posted one.
> As I moderate no mailing list, my opinions have as much
> force as a politician's promise. But I shall continue
> to value inline-annotated messages more highly than
> top-posted ones.
More information about the erlang-questions