3 ms·

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

• 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.
  • CJefferson 7y ago
    I feel I should top post on principle :) I've added my email to my user -- I actually always assumed the email address I put in the email box was public, and had just never chacked. Thinking about my reply, I feel top-posting encourages giving an over-all answer to an email, rather than point by point. Also, while one inline reply like you gave, feels natural, if I was to now make another point-by-point inline reply, we would start that thing I personally dislike, where it is "as if" we were having 5 or 6 parallel mini-conversations.
    • ColinWright 7y ago
      <grin> Thanks for the contact details. The point-by-point stuff works well if each sub-thread can be closed off when done, and sub-threads can be merged when appropriate. I agree that things can become a big mess, and that effort is required to create value. But that's always the case. I think we've made our cases, and I appreciate your responses.
• TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Going off a complete tangent (and this is why I love tree-shaped forums vs. linear forums - I can do that without disrupting the rest of the discussion): > 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 never understood why that's seen as a negative. What's the point of having a conversation if longer messages and point-by-point discussions are discouraged? The opposite of that is a shallow conversation that doesn't explore the discussed space. I like when people inline-reply to my larger e-mails, because this way I know what they're referring to, and don't have to parse out their attempts at describing in words which parts of an e-mail they're commenting on.
  • CJefferson 7y ago
    It's because, on mailing lists, I find those kinds of conversations can often have a low signal/noise ratio. Not always, but sometimes you end up with massive threads that go on for weeks, with increasingly huge messages. That's not to say that always happens of course.
    • ColinWright 7y ago
      Agreed, but that's where judicious blocking and muting become essential, possibly on a discussion-by-discussion basis. That will always be the case in a free-for-all such as mailing lists or forums, rather than a discussion between colleagues/friends.