Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 09/08/2011 07:07 AM, Robert Parker wrote:
There is one thing more irritating than top posting. People who rant about it.

There was no "rant". Perhaps you might take time to read the post *and*
review the threads in these lists (particularly the 'users' list?

Other lists (as I've demonstrated) provide clear instructions the
guidelines list users are expected to follow. The point is that LO does
not, and instead uses a link to a vague wiki at the bottom of list
messages rather than posting guidelines upfront. This tends to lead to
ongoing debates on how list posters are to behave.

As mentioned: I don't really care if the consensuses is to only top-post
on these lists. My primary consideration is to have an established set
of posting guidelines (as in the examples provided) so that we no longer
have to resort to the 'mine is better' model. It makes it easier for all
users; particularly new users as it's then rather simple to point to the
guideline url/page and *politely* ask them to abide by the list guidelines.

Why is it that after all of the previous debates, posts, aggravation,
that LO can't just put up a page regarding list guidelines?

Thats a question btw, not a "rant".

Following /not/ snipped on purpose:

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM, NoOp <> wrote:
For those that continue to insist on top posting on the LO lists: please
consider bottom posting with interspersed replies.

I realiz(s)e that the existing:
doesn't specifically clarify anything with regards to top/bottom
posting. However at the bottom of each mail on this list is a link to:
That page doesn't help much either, but it /does/ include a link to:
which includes this bit:

2.3 Why should I place my response below the quoted text?

Usually, the reading-flow is from left to right and from top to bottom,
and people expect a chronological sequence similar to this. Especially
people who are reading a lot of articles (and who therefore would
qualify as the ideal person to answer your question) appreciate it if
they can read at first the text to which you are referring. The quoted
text is some kind of help to remember the topic, which of course will
not work, if you place the quoted text below your response.

Furthermore, that's the standard. This may sound as a weak argument, but
since people are not used to reading the other way around, they have no
idea what you are referring to and have to go back and forth between the
referenced articles, have to jump between different articles and so on.
In short - reading the article becomes more and more difficult - for
people who read many articles it is reason enough to skip the entire
article, if the context is not obvious.

And besides: doesn't it look stupid to first get the answer and then see
the question? (Aside from Jeopardy, of course.)

Furthermore, you (yes: You) save a lot of time using this way of
quoting: You do not need to repeat what the person you refer to wrote,
in order to show the context. You just place your comment after the text
you wish to comment upon, and everybody immediately knows what you refer
to. Also, you realize which text you are *not* responding to and can
delete these parts.

So: using this technique you save time, your readers don't have to waste
time, you save bandwidth and disk-space. Isn't it great what you can
achieve by such simple means?

and that seems to imply that such posting styles on this list are the
desired guideline.

Samples of similar on other lists:
Top-posting vs bottom-posting.

   Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it
the other way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates
about which posting style is better have led to many flame wars in the
forums. To keep forum discussion friendly, please do interspersion with
trimming (see above for trimming rules). For a simple reply, this is
equivalent bottom-posting. So, remove extraneous material, and place
your comments in logical order, after the text you are commenting upon.
The only exceptions are the accessibility forums, which are top-posting.
Proper quoting:

Proper quoting is very important on mailing lists, to ensure that it is
easy to follow the conversation. There are four fundamental rules:


   Write your email underneath the email which you are replying to.

and even:
When replying to other people it is customary to intersperse your
response with their questions, both so you can answer the actual
question that was asked, and so everyone else has some idea what you are
talking about. It is also customary to limit your quoting to the minimum
possible to get your point across. Take the time to be considerate,
remember those subscribers who have slow, expensive connections.

Note: that last is liable to go away given the recent
transition/announcements by Apache regarding mail lists... but it's
worth mentioning anyway.

Eventually I hope that LO will actually include a link to general
posting guidelines on the
<> page with complete
posting guidelines. Even if the final consensus is to only top post...
at least will help with consistancy on this (users), and the other LO lists.

Added Note: I'd originally sent this to the users list as IMO that is
where the guidelines are needed most. So there may be some cross posting
in replies.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.