An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software that
takes me straight from one new post to the next. There's an awful lot of
posts in this newsgroup, and when someone simply follows up a previous
post with no indication of what it's about, it's a hassle to have to
start backtracking to find the post being responded to, or, worse still,
try and find a post in a separate thread with the same name.

Please could people quote enough of the post they're replying to so that
readers know what it is they're talking about? It would make reading
posts a lot easier, and it would also mean that there's a better chance
of getting a reply.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

That is where top posting comes to the fore :-)))


National Service (RAF) Ass. Cosford 24 - 27 June Spitfire Fly Past
H.M.S.Impregnable Ass. Sussex 1 - 4 July Visit to Int. Fest of the Sea
RAF Regiment Assoc. Scarborough 2 - 5 Sept. Visit to Eden Camp
H.M.S.Collingwood Assn Trafalgar Dinner. Coventry October 21 - 24
"Kay" wrote in message
...
An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software that
takes me straight from one new post to the next. There's an awful lot of
posts in this newsgroup, and when someone simply follows up a previous
post with no indication of what it's about, it's a hassle to have to
start backtracking to find the post being responded to, or, worse still,
try and find a post in a separate thread with the same name.

Please could people quote enough of the post they're replying to so that
readers know what it is they're talking about? It would make reading
posts a lot easier, and it would also mean that there's a better chance
of getting a reply.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

The message
from "Mike" contains these words:

That is where top posting comes to the fore :-)))

If nothing's being quoted it's rather difficult find a choice.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:20:24 +0100, Kay
wrote:

An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software that
takes me straight from one new post to the next. There's an awful lot of
posts in this newsgroup, and when someone simply follows up a previous
post with no indication of what it's about, it's a hassle to have to
start backtracking to find the post being responded to, or, worse still,
try and find a post in a separate thread with the same name.

Please could people quote enough of the post they're replying to so that
readers know what it is they're talking about? It would make reading
posts a lot easier, and it would also mean that there's a better chance
of getting a reply.

Kay. are you saying that your newsreader just puts one post after
another irrespective of subject, so they are all jumbled together?
Agent, which I use, is very well organised. The posts are
automatically grouped under the subject line. I've never used another
newsreader so don't know how the rest work. I find no trouble and have
said before that it is a pain to scroll through long posts which build
up with each subsequent post, and then I find at the bottom "I agree
with you" or other one line additions. It's better when people snip as
much as possible. This is where top posting makes life easier. But I
know I'm in a minority here and don't top post any more!

Pam in Bristol

"This is where top posting makes life easier."

If only people would listen to me the first time !!!!

Mike
Who never knowingly lies :-)))

--
National Service (RAF) Ass. Cosford 24 - 27 June Spitfire Fly Past
H.M.S.Impregnable Ass. Sussex 1 - 4 July Visit to Int. Fest of the Sea
RAF Regiment Assoc. Scarborough 2 - 5 Sept. Visit to Eden Camp
H.M.S.Collingwood Assn Trafalgar Dinner. Coventry October 21 - 24
"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:20:24 +0100, Kay
wrote:

An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software that
takes me straight from one new post to the next. There's an awful lot of
posts in this newsgroup, and when someone simply follows up a previous
post with no indication of what it's about, it's a hassle to have to
start backtracking to find the post being responded to, or, worse still,
try and find a post in a separate thread with the same name.

Please could people quote enough of the post they're replying to so that
readers know what it is they're talking about? It would make reading
posts a lot easier, and it would also mean that there's a better chance
of getting a reply.

Kay. are you saying that your newsreader just puts one post after
another irrespective of subject, so they are all jumbled together?
Agent, which I use, is very well organised. The posts are
automatically grouped under the subject line. I've never used another
newsreader so don't know how the rest work. I find no trouble and have
said before that it is a pain to scroll through long posts which build
up with each subsequent post, and then I find at the bottom "I agree
with you" or other one line additions. It's better when people snip as
much as possible. This is where top posting makes life easier. But I
know I'm in a minority here and don't top post any more!

Pam in Bristol

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:20:24 +0100, Kay wrote
(in message ):

An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software that
takes me straight from one new post to the next. There's an awful lot of
posts in this newsgroup, and when someone simply follows up a previous
post with no indication of what it's about, it's a hassle to have to
start backtracking to find the post being responded to, or, worse still,
try and find a post in a separate thread with the same name.

Please could people quote enough of the post they're replying to so that
readers know what it is they're talking about? It would make reading
posts a lot easier, and it would also mean that there's a better chance
of getting a reply.


I notice that your newsreader is Turnpike. When I last used Turnpike, which
was in the first year of it becoming available (gasp- getting on for ten
years ago!), even then it used a clever graphical interface that displayed
the threading of newsgroup posts. I found it to be an excellent newsreader
and I find it hard to believe that it has regressed iand become more
primitive since then. Your ISP's tech helpline should be able to tell you how
to change the settings if you don't know.

--
VX (remove alcohol for email)

In article , Pam Moore
writes

Kay. are you saying that your newsreader just puts one post after
another irrespective of subject, so they are all jumbled together?

No - I'm saying that hitting the space bar (or hitting the 'next unread'
button) takes me through the first new post from top to bottom, then
from the first new post to the next new post, which it does in an
organised fashion down one branch, then down the next branch and so on
till all branches are exhausted, then on to the first new post in the
next thread and so on.

But since I read urg a couple of times a day, each branch of each thread
may have only one new post. So if there is no quoting, I have to break
the flow and hit 'previous' to go back to the previous post, and read
what it is that the poster is responding to.

Since I expire posts after 3 days, I may need to re-request a post, if
the non-quoting poster is replying to something several days old.

And more recently we are getting posters who not only fail to quote,
they start a new thread for each of their replies! And I defy any
newsreading software to sort that one out.

Agent, which I use, is very well organised.

So is Turnpike, which is what I use.

The posts are
automatically grouped under the subject line.

Turnpike does this, in a tree structure which shows clearly which post
is in response to which - which may not be so important in urg with its
tiny threads, but in another newsgroup which I read, where threads have
in the past run to over 1000 posts, the tree structure comes into its
own.

But even though it is clear which post is responding to which (except
when people start new threads for their every post), if people don't
quote, you still have to go back and open the old post and read it.

Except I don't bother any more. If I don't understand what the post is
referring to, I just ignore it.

I've suffered from RSI in the past, so being able to just hit the space
bar, rather than doing lots of mouse work opening previous posts, is
important to me.

I've never used another
newsreader so don't know how the rest work. I find no trouble and have
said before that it is a pain to scroll through long posts which build
up with each subsequent post, and then I find at the bottom "I agree
with you" or other one line additions. It's better when people snip as
much as possible.

I couldn't agree more!

This is where top posting makes life easier.

Ah - but then hitting space bar in Turnpike scrolls down the post before
it moves to the next one, and top posters rarely snip, so you read a
one-liner at the top, ad then hit space 20 times as you scroll down all
the old posts still dangling from the bottom!

Besides, it would have been a nightmare having to respond to all your
points in a single paragraph at the top ;-)

But I
know I'm in a minority here and don't top post any more!

:-)
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Jaques
d'Alltrades writes
The message
from "Mike" contains these words:

That is where top posting comes to the fore :-)))

If nothing's being quoted it's rather difficult find a choice.

Or to put it another way, if you aren't quoting anything, you can't top
post because there's nothing you can put your post on top of.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:00:11 +0100, VX wrote
(in message m):

I notice that your newsreader is Turnpike. When I last used Turnpike, which
was in the first year of it becoming available (gasp- getting on for ten
years ago!), even then it used a clever graphical interface that displayed
the threading of newsgroup posts. I found it to be an excellent newsreader
and I find it hard to believe that it has regressed iand become more
primitive since then. Your ISP's tech helpline should be able to tell you
how
to change the settings if you don't know.



Wooops- what I said and then edited out before sending was that it was
possible (with Turnpike) to go from one post to the next in the thread thus
reading every post in chronological (threaded) order, even to pick which
branch of the thread you want to read first- and it should be able to let you
do the same thing now if you set it accordingly. Also- I note with an uneasy
feeling that my post sounded a bit condescending. Not intended!

--
VX (remove alcohol for email)

In article m, VX
writes

I notice that your newsreader is Turnpike. When I last used Turnpike, which
was in the first year of it becoming available (gasp- getting on for ten
years ago!), even then it used a clever graphical interface that displayed
the threading of newsgroup posts.

It displays the threading of the titles, not the body text. You have to
open the post to read it.

So instead of just hopping from new post to new post, you have to go
back and open a previous post instead of just reading the context in the
post you already have open.

And even Turnpike's excellent threading can't cope with those posters
who, as well as not quoting, are opening a new thread for their every
post.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

My word, that 'is' a welcoming posting by Barrowcloth :-((

--
National Service (RAF) Ass. Cosford 24 - 27 June Spitfire Fly Past
H.M.S.Impregnable Ass. Sussex 1 - 4 July Visit to Int. Fest of the Sea
RAF Regiment Assoc. Scarborough 2 - 5 Sept. Visit to Eden Camp
H.M.S.Collingwood Assn Trafalgar Dinner. Coventry October 21 - 24
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from Kay contains these words:


Best response. If such posters find that they get answers even though
they don't bother to post as the majority do, they'll keep doing it and
letting people run round spoon feeding them. If writers of multiple
inane headers like "I need more help" were ignored, they would perhaps
make a tiny bit more effort.

Janet

In article , Pam Moore
writes

Kay. are you saying that your newsreader just puts one post after
another irrespective of subject, so they are all jumbled together?

Kay writes
No - I'm saying that hitting the space bar (or hitting the 'next unread'
button) takes me through the first new post from top to bottom, then
from the first new post to the next new post, which it does in an
organised fashion down one branch, then down the next branch and so on
till all branches are exhausted, then on to the first new post in the
next thread and so on.

But since I read urg a couple of times a day, each branch of each thread
may have only one new post. So if there is no quoting, I have to break
the flow and hit 'previous' to go back to the previous post, and read
what it is that the poster is responding to.

Since I expire posts after 3 days, I may need to re-request a post, if
the non-quoting poster is replying to something several days old.

And more recently we are getting posters who not only fail to quote,
they start a new thread for each of their replies! And I defy any
newsreading software to sort that one out.

I have e-mailed the webmaster of gardenbanter and asked them to look at
the way their users posts are appearing here, as in my Turnpike I see
several multiple posts with the same thread topic, and all of the
duplicates are gardenbanter. The reply was helpful and they are looking
into it.

Agent, which I use, is very well organised.

So is Turnpike, which is what I use.

The posts are
automatically grouped under the subject line.

Turnpike does this, in a tree structure which shows clearly which post
is in response to which - which may not be so important in urg with its
tiny threads, but in another newsgroup which I read, where threads have
in the past run to over 1000 posts, the tree structure comes into its
own.

But even though it is clear which post is responding to which (except
when people start new threads for their every post), if people don't
quote, you still have to go back and open the old post and read it.

Except I don't bother any more. If I don't understand what the post is
referring to, I just ignore it.

I've suffered from RSI in the past, so being able to just hit the space
bar, rather than doing lots of mouse work opening previous posts, is
important to me.

I've never used another
newsreader so don't know how the rest work. I find no trouble and have
said before that it is a pain to scroll through long posts which build
up with each subsequent post, and then I find at the bottom "I agree
with you" or other one line additions. It's better when people snip as
much as possible.

I couldn't agree more!

This is where top posting makes life easier.

Ah - but then hitting space bar in Turnpike scrolls down the post before
it moves to the next one, and top posters rarely snip, so you read a
one-liner at the top, ad then hit space 20 times as you scroll down all
the old posts still dangling from the bottom!

Besides, it would have been a nightmare having to respond to all your
points in a single paragraph at the top ;-)

But I
know I'm in a minority here and don't top post any more!

:-)

IME top posting is the convention for business where time and getting
the reply is most important and you are most likely to be familiar both
with the subject and the poster. Bottom posting for ngs where you really
need to know the context (out of many many possible threads and ngs) in
order to understand the reply
--
David

Kay wrote

An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software that
takes me straight from one new post to the next. There's an awful lot of
posts in this newsgroup, and when someone simply follows up a previous
post with no indication of what it's about, it's a hassle to have to
start backtracking to find the post being responded to, or, worse still,
try and find a post in a separate thread with the same name.

Please could people quote enough of the post they're replying to so that
readers know what it is they're talking about? It would make reading
posts a lot easier, and it would also mean that there's a better chance
of getting a reply.


VX writes
I notice that your newsreader is Turnpike. When I last used Turnpike, which
was in the first year of it becoming available (gasp- getting on for ten
years ago!), even then it used a clever graphical interface that displayed
the threading of newsgroup posts. I found it to be an excellent newsreader
and I find it hard to believe that it has regressed iand become more
primitive since then. Your ISP's tech helpline should be able to tell you how
to change the settings if you don't know.

I don't think its a technical matter. I too use a Turnpike version from
probably that vintage, and its not the appearance of the posts, but the
content of them. Often newbies do not understand the difference between
replying to an existing thread and starting a new one, and often people
reply as if they are addressing a single person rather than all the
group (including lurkers). Similarly some folk have just started a reply
as if they are sending a text message on a phone without any context.
Some have even complained that some of the replies did not meet their
own specific criteria, without realising that once a topic is up and
running, it may take all sorts of twists and turns and cover all sorts
of related matters which might be of great interest to others, including
lurkers.

Eventually we should have everyone copying the normal conventions here,
but I think we've just attracted a lot of new posters recently. A lot of
learner-drivers not showing L plates?
--
David

Dave wrote in message
...
Kay wrote

An increasing number of people are posting replies to threads without
any indication of what it is that they're replying to, other than the
heading which may or may not be informative.

Like many (most?) people, I'm reading this newsgroup using software
Eventually we should have everyone copying the normal conventions here,
but I think we've just attracted a lot of new posters recently. A lot of
learner-drivers not showing L plates?
--
David



Please help a newbie - Is there any way of getting the ordinary Outlook
Express to position the cursor (for typing) below the previous text
automatically when penning a reply? This would stop me doing the dreaded top
posting mistake!

Here's hoping,

A

The message
from Dave contains these words:

IME top posting is the convention for business where time and getting
the reply is most important and you are most likely to be familiar both
with the subject and the poster. Bottom posting for ngs where you really
need to know the context (out of many many possible threads and ngs) in
order to understand the reply

However, judicious use of the secateurs would be appreciated.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/