3 ms·

I tend to read email threads in order, so I already know what the previous message was. I don't want to have to scan past it to find the new content. If I do ne

I tend to read email threads in order, so I already know what the previous message was. I don't want to have to scan past it to find the new content. If I do need to see the previous message, it is there below the new content. I think this is just a disagreement on reading order -- I want to see the reply before the context, you want to see the context before the reply. Unfortunately, without email gaining more structure/context, we can't both be made happy.

ColinWright 7y ago
I usually have so many email discussions going on there's no way I can keep the context in my head. I come to each email without a context, so I need to come up to speed. And each email can have several points running in parallel, so I get a collection of comments, none of which mean anything without their context, so I need to go hunting. Top-posting kills my productivity. With in-line replies, especially with colour coding (as most email clients now do) you can skim down to find the reply first, if that's what you refer. It seems to me that in-line replies would serve you just as well as they serve me. But you're certainly right that without more structure, email in it's current form can't make both of us happy, and for me, it's simply vile.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  Could have been neat if the email client would detect if it was top or bottom posting, and have an option to scroll to the new bits automatically...
  - e12e 7y ago
    To a certain extent this is worse. Gmail have (or had, I'm not keeping up) this feature that it would display threaded "as-if" everyone bottom-posted, but default to send top-posted. If two people were using Gmail - no problem. If you were using a "proper" mua, it was a constant struggle to get to through the replies. Outlook was/is no better - the infuriating part about Gmail is/was that to the Gmail user everything seemed OK - but at least for the outlook user they knew they were too-posting. Unfortunately, most outlook user are stuck in outlook - so there's no hope to change the situation for them. I actually believe the state of Gmail and outlook is part of the "death" of email - and "need" for forums etc (that and the death of usenet news. Incidentally why the d-lang forums are so interesting - I just whish it was a bit more packaged for setting up just forum+news (dfeed https://forum.dlang.org/help) https://forum.dlang.org/help)).
- CJefferson 7y ago
  Please take what I'm about to say as a (hopefully) interesting discussion, and not an attack. We've never met in real life, so neither of us knows what's in the other's head! I feel like, based on reading your article, you believe that anyone who likes top-posting is just lazy or confused about what's best -- for example "It seems to me that in-line replies would serve you just as well as they serve me." So, you seem convinced that what I want makes your life miserable (not denying that!), but what you want would make me, and all the other top posters in the world (which, as you say, is most email writers and also email program creators) basically as happy as we are now. This isn't true. I like top-posting on most threads. I don't like in-line. In-line tends to encourage (in my experience) massive posts, where people end up having several related conversations in parallel, and also huge point-by-point rebuttals. I'm NOT saying you have to "join us", and I'd certainly be happy with a new answer which makes us all happy! But don't assume we just need to be "educated" against top-posting.
  - ColinWright 7y ago
    This is a well-thought through reply ... thank you. I'd love to reply to all your points carefully and individually. But that's not possible without in-line posting. So I'll do that, and trust that you can make sense of what follows. > Please take what I'm about to say as a (hopefully) interesting discussion, and not an attack. We've never met in real life, so neither of us knows what's in the other's head! Agreed, and thank you for setting the context so we can agree that people are different, and have different preferences and needs. > I feel like, based on reading your article, you believe that anyone who likes top-posting is just lazy or confused about what's best -- for example "It seems to me that in-line replies would serve you just as well as they serve me." I can see how that might come across, although it's not really intended that way. It's intended to make the argument that, when supported by an appropriate email client, (a) in-line posting is roughly as efficient as top-posting, (b) when threads are short it doesn't matter, and (c) when threads are long it can ensure that each reply segment is put in the right context. People aren't lazy, they just don't do work that they perceive to be unnecessary, and that's perfectly understandable. > So, you seem convinced that ... what you want would make me, and all the other top posters in the world ... basically as happy as we are now. I'm not convinced of that. What I do know is that top-posting genuinely, repeatedly makes me miserable, and yet it's being forced on me. I wonder if people who are currently accustomed to top-posting are simply trained to think they prefer it, or if it's genuinely better for them. I wonder if people who currently like top-posting would, in fact, come to like in-line posting as much. These are genuine questions. I wonder if people might come to prefer in-line posting if given the chance, and with support from their email client. > This isn't true. I like top-posting on most threads. I don't like in-line. In-line tends to encourage (in my experience) massive posts, where people end up having several related conversations in parallel, and also huge point-by-point rebuttals. Which is exactly what is happening here. But would you prefer that I didn't reply? Would you prefer that these discussion didn't actually happen? Are you advocating not having discussions? That seems ... unlikely. If the discussions happen, that's evidence that there is something to be said. If in-line posting supports that, that's evidence that in-line posting has its advantages. If top-posting prevents these discussions, that's evidence against top-posting. > I'm NOT saying you have to "join us" ... Unfortunately current email clients, and the way they are used, are saying exactly that. > ... I'd certainly be happy with a new answer which makes us all happy! But don't assume we just need to be "educated" against top-posting.* I'm not advocating that you all join me, but I'd really, really like to see a decent solution to this. At the moment, top-posting tarnishes my soul, little by little, day by day. And thank you again for your considered reply. PS: I can appreciate that you might prefer not, but it would be nice to be in touch outside of HN. Email me if you like, or put your contact details in your profile. But if you prefer not to, that's fine. PPS: edited to clarify a few points and fix some typos.

ColinWright 7y ago

I usually have so many email discussions going on there's no way I can keep the context in my head. I come to each email without a context, so I need to come up to speed. And each email can have several points running in parallel, so I get a collection of comments, none of which mean anything without their context, so I need to go hunting. Top-posting kills my productivity. With in-line replies, especially with colour coding (as most email clients now do) you can skim down to find the reply first, if that's what you refer. It seems to me that in-line replies would serve you just as well as they serve me. But you're certainly right that without more structure, email in it's current form can't make both of us happy, and for me, it's simply vile.

magicalhippo 7y ago
Could have been neat if the email client would detect if it was top or bottom posting, and have an option to scroll to the new bits automatically...
- e12e 7y ago
  To a certain extent this is worse. Gmail have (or had, I'm not keeping up) this feature that it would display threaded "as-if" everyone bottom-posted, but default to send top-posted. If two people were using Gmail - no problem. If you were using a "proper" mua, it was a constant struggle to get to through the replies. Outlook was/is no better - the infuriating part about Gmail is/was that to the Gmail user everything seemed OK - but at least for the outlook user they knew they were too-posting. Unfortunately, most outlook user are stuck in outlook - so there's no hope to change the situation for them. I actually believe the state of Gmail and outlook is part of the "death" of email - and "need" for forums etc (that and the death of usenet news. Incidentally why the d-lang forums are so interesting - I just whish it was a bit more packaged for setting up just forum+news (dfeed https://forum.dlang.org/help) https://forum.dlang.org/help)).
CJefferson 7y ago
Please take what I'm about to say as a (hopefully) interesting discussion, and not an attack. We've never met in real life, so neither of us knows what's in the other's head! I feel like, based on reading your article, you believe that anyone who likes top-posting is just lazy or confused about what's best -- for example "It seems to me that in-line replies would serve you just as well as they serve me." So, you seem convinced that what I want makes your life miserable (not denying that!), but what you want would make me, and all the other top posters in the world (which, as you say, is most email writers and also email program creators) basically as happy as we are now. This isn't true. I like top-posting on most threads. I don't like in-line. In-line tends to encourage (in my experience) massive posts, where people end up having several related conversations in parallel, and also huge point-by-point rebuttals. I'm NOT saying you have to "join us", and I'd certainly be happy with a new answer which makes us all happy! But don't assume we just need to be "educated" against top-posting.
- ColinWright 7y ago
  This is a well-thought through reply ... thank you. I'd love to reply to all your points carefully and individually. But that's not possible without in-line posting. So I'll do that, and trust that you can make sense of what follows. > Please take what I'm about to say as a (hopefully) interesting discussion, and not an attack. We've never met in real life, so neither of us knows what's in the other's head! Agreed, and thank you for setting the context so we can agree that people are different, and have different preferences and needs. > I feel like, based on reading your article, you believe that anyone who likes top-posting is just lazy or confused about what's best -- for example "It seems to me that in-line replies would serve you just as well as they serve me." I can see how that might come across, although it's not really intended that way. It's intended to make the argument that, when supported by an appropriate email client, (a) in-line posting is roughly as efficient as top-posting, (b) when threads are short it doesn't matter, and (c) when threads are long it can ensure that each reply segment is put in the right context. People aren't lazy, they just don't do work that they perceive to be unnecessary, and that's perfectly understandable. > So, you seem convinced that ... what you want would make me, and all the other top posters in the world ... basically as happy as we are now. I'm not convinced of that. What I do know is that top-posting genuinely, repeatedly makes me miserable, and yet it's being forced on me. I wonder if people who are currently accustomed to top-posting are simply trained to think they prefer it, or if it's genuinely better for them. I wonder if people who currently like top-posting would, in fact, come to like in-line posting as much. These are genuine questions. I wonder if people might come to prefer in-line posting if given the chance, and with support from their email client. > This isn't true. I like top-posting on most threads. I don't like in-line. In-line tends to encourage (in my experience) massive posts, where people end up having several related conversations in parallel, and also huge point-by-point rebuttals. Which is exactly what is happening here. But would you prefer that I didn't reply? Would you prefer that these discussion didn't actually happen? Are you advocating not having discussions? That seems ... unlikely. If the discussions happen, that's evidence that there is something to be said. If in-line posting supports that, that's evidence that in-line posting has its advantages. If top-posting prevents these discussions, that's evidence against top-posting. > I'm NOT saying you have to "join us" ... Unfortunately current email clients, and the way they are used, are saying exactly that. > ... I'd certainly be happy with a new answer which makes us all happy! But don't assume we just need to be "educated" against top-posting.* I'm not advocating that you all join me, but I'd really, really like to see a decent solution to this. At the moment, top-posting tarnishes my soul, little by little, day by day. And thank you again for your considered reply. PS: I can appreciate that you might prefer not, but it would be nice to be in touch outside of HN. Email me if you like, or put your contact details in your profile. But if you prefer not to, that's fine. PPS: edited to clarify a few points and fix some typos.