Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message.
The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It Wrong, please have a read.
Thanks!
MZMcBride
Hoi, The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
When you argue that this is not best practice, my question to you is, when has your best practice been re-evaluated for the last time.. Does it consider the improved functionality that is there for you to have ? Thanks, GerardM
On 31 March 2010 00:41, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message.
The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It Wrong, please have a read.
Thanks!
MZMcBride
[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling mailing lists
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
When you argue that this is not best practice, my question to you is, when has your best practice been re-evaluated for the last time.. Does it consider the improved functionality that is there for you to have ? Thanks, GerardM
On 31 March 2010 00:41, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. This makes
for
far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find
the
content of the reply to the previous message.
The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It Wrong, please have a read.
Thanks!
MZMcBride
[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, John Doe wrote:
I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling mailing lists
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client.
Hi guys. Please consider that the two of you might be in the group that should be checking that page. Top-posting isn't the best way, and relying upon Gmail to handle things is definitely not the best way.
Instead of blindly assuming what you already do is ideal, please be open to the suggestion that it isn't.
Thanks, - -Mike
yup, especially John Doe!
On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, John Doe wrote:
I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling mailing lists
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client.
Hi guys. Please consider that the two of you might be in the group that should be checking that page. Top-posting isn't the best way, and relying upon Gmail to handle things is definitely not the best way.
Instead of blindly assuming what you already do is ideal, please be open to the suggestion that it isn't.
Thanks,
- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkuyiocACgkQst0AR/DaKHsb8QCgkZlHUfS3zB0TBm0Bu9GCYM4s GsAAoJ0E6SUsXUEeNkg5t97qmbFrVOyu =/wuc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
When you argue that this is not best practice, my question to you is, when has your best practice been re-evaluated for the last time.. Does it consider the improved functionality that is there for you to have ?
We don't all use gmail. And if you're relying on people's mail clients hiding the original text, why don't you just remove it so that it goes away for everyone?
On 31 March 2010 01:12, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
When you argue that this is not best practice, my question to you is, when has your best practice been re-evaluated for the last time.. Does it consider the improved functionality that is there for you to have ?
We don't all use gmail. And if you're relying on people's mail clients hiding the original text, why don't you just remove it so that it goes away for everyone?
Indeed, posting on a mailinglist is all about respect for the other clients. And boosting your own client as superior and thus not needing to bother with etiquette seems a bit... ignorant or arrogant. I can understand people not being aware of the problem, but ignoring it? That's worse to me.
I use gmail, and treat my recipents all equal; none of them get topposts, as it distrubs the way you read things.
A: Because it ruins the way people read. Q: Why is topposting bad?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Svip svippy@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, posting on a mailinglist is all about respect for the other clients. And boosting your own client as superior and thus not needing to bother with etiquette seems a bit... ignorant or arrogant. I can understand people not being aware of the problem, but ignoring it? That's worse to me.
I use gmail, and treat my recipents all equal; none of them get topposts, as it distrubs the way you read things.
A: Because it ruins the way people read. Q: Why is topposting bad?
I feel compelled to weigh in and admit that while there's no Official Rule[tm] against top-posting on Foundation-l, and I'm not going to ban you for it, DBAD[1] is very much a guiding principle here. Inconveniencing other people because you're lazy is just antisocial behavior.
I've seen the "just use [poster's particular e-mail solution]" as justification for a lot of stuff, from minor things like top-posting to major things like replying to all 500 messages a month. I honestly don't know where else in life that people have found this attitude to be well-received, but I can tell you that it isn't here.
I do use gmail, obviously, so top-posters don't create a great deal of personal angst for me. That hasn't always been the case, though, and a lot of people still use traditional e-mail clients. The polite thing to do, especially given that we're a supposedly savvier-than-average tech community, is to quote in context, only reproducing what's needed to understand your reply.
I've seen a few replies to this thread which make it clear that the posters haven't actually read the document MZMcBride linked to. Seriously, just go read it. It's not that long. Everyone's life can be so much happier if we just spend a minute or two thoughtfully deleting unneeded text and putting new text where it makes logical sense.
And even if I won't moderate you for top-posting, I will moderate you for being a dick.
Thanks,
Austin
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Svip svippy@gmail.com wrote:
A: Because it ruins the way people read. Q: Why is topposting bad?
Is bottom posting any better?
Is bottom posting any better?
No, not really.
Is bottom posting any better?
No, not really.
Why not?
Is bottom posting any better?
No, not really.
Why not?
Because it too ruins the way people read.
---
Top posting, bottom posting, whatever. It really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. What sucks is when one person bottom posts and the other one top posts.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
When you argue that this is not best practice, my question to you is, when has your best practice been re-evaluated for the last time.. Does it consider the improved functionality that is there for you to have ?
I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow mobile broadband available. It is very annoying to need to download many copies of the same "crap" because people top post.
Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap", however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose responses while I am offline.
The best practise is to not assume that everyone has unlimited broadband and access to these adv. web 2.0 gadgets - there are a lot of pockets in the world which are not so fortunate.
-- John Vandenberg
On 31 March 2010 00:15, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap", however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose responses while I am offline.
Get Gmail Offline, then! (You turn it on somewhere in preferences.) It uses Google Gears to enable you to read and compose emails offline and it syncs when it has a connection.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2010 00:15, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap", however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose responses while I am offline.
Get Gmail Offline, then! (You turn it on somewhere in preferences.) It uses Google Gears to enable you to read and compose emails offline and it syncs when it has a connection.
Thanks for the tip. I missed this.
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-in-labs-offline-gmail.html
However the availability of a gmail experimental feature doesn't mean that the age-old email etiquette can be thrown out the window.
-- John Vandenberg
On 31/03/10 00:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 31 March 2010 00:15, John Vandenbergjayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap", however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose responses while I am offline.
Get Gmail Offline, then! (You turn it on somewhere in preferences.) It uses Google Gears to enable you to read and compose emails offline and it syncs when it has a connection.
Again, Gmail Offline is a proprietary product, and stores all of your mail in Google's cloud.
It's perfectly reasonable for people not to want either, and make their own choice of both client and storage medium. Mailing lists, and the ecosystem surrounding them, have worked just fine for around 40 years; why break something that works just fine for other people as it is currently?
-- Neil
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client.
No. Writing an inline reply and cutting out the cruft is supported by every client, everywhere, always. You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is, at its core, laziness.
People often read this list (and other lists) in the online archives, on mobile platforms, and elsewhere. Simply because you can pollute messages with a copious amount of crap does not mean you should.
It takes a matter of seconds to delete the extra information and makes the entire list more readable for everyone.
MZMcBride
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is, at its core, laziness.
Every great software application has, at its core, laziness.
Hi,
I prefer to write emails following rules similar to what MZMcBride pointed at the beginning of this topic, mainly because it is how I like to read other people emails - tho unfortunately a few people do so. I use gmail, because I like its features and I don't care about privacy issues, but I believe people should have the choise to worry about this, i. e., people should be allowed to not use *a* specific client.
There are places where Internet access is very expensive, mainly poor countries. [1] Fortunately, even paying too much for Internet access, as compared to (the so called) developed countries, I can easily follow these discussions. But I know there are (a *lot* of) people who cannot (a few years a go I couldn't). Then, in my humble opinion, a minimum effort could make possible more people to have access to discussions at WMF mainling list.
Unless most of us already have a well formed opinion on the uselfulness of most discussions held here.
Hugs,
Tom
[1] Are poor countries subsidizing the rich?
http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2005&iss...
(A few research can show more data and comparisons on that.)
Anthony wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is, at its core, laziness.
Every great software application has, at its core, laziness.
Indeed! Or perhaps that might be better applied whenever a solution to a problem depends mostly on software, or on the use of a convenient acronym. It is for the writer's convenience that he uses two letters when two words would make things more clear. The writer's time saved in typing fewer characters is trivial in comparison to the combined time spent by many readers trying to decipher the acronym. In a tanglement of templates and transclusions lurks a lazy solution. Shortcutting a solution deprives the user of the understanding that made that solution effective.
Ec
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread...
What possible good did you see coming from this thread? You /knew/ it would produce a bunch of "I agree"s and "I'll post how I want"s and go nowhere useful at all.
Lame.
-Chad
Chad wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread...
What possible good did you see coming from this thread? You /knew/ it would produce a bunch of "I agree"s and "I'll post how I want"s and go nowhere useful at all.
Lame.
Maybe he was not aware of how this subject turned out last time around:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042321.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042359.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-May/042399.html
-- Tim Starling
Chad wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread...
What possible good did you see coming from this thread? You /knew/ it would produce a bunch of "I agree"s and "I'll post how I want"s and go nowhere useful at all.
Lame.
Life's full of annoyances. After seeing this[1] clusterfuck of a reply, I felt compelled to point out that the current sloppy and rude practice exhibited by some people on this mailing list does annoy others. (Looking at Marcus' other replies, this particular reply seems to be outside the norm, but it was his reply that sparked my opening post.) Alternately, in the interest of assuming good faith, it's also conceivable that some people on this list are simply ignorant of inline replies and clean start replies, and don't intend to be rude or sloppy.
If people want to continue to leave whatever the hell they please in their replies, it's their prerogative and Austin has said he's not going to regulate the bad behavior. But awareness often leads to change. The reply from you, Chad, was unusually cleaned up and concise. I'll consider that a minor victory. :-)
Tim Starling wrote:
Maybe he was not aware of how this subject turned out last time around:
I wasn't aware of those posts, though it's not surprising to read them. Still, I think it's a point that bears repeating.
MZMcBride
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-March/057393.html
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand
how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread.
Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person to person.
This makes for far more noise than signal,
True
as people wade through six copies of the
foundation-l footer
Footers should of course be kept brief and to the point, else they become irritating.. Our current footer can probably be reduced to 1 or 2 lines.
or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
content of the reply to the previous message.
Good practice imho is to leave only the previous text, but delete all text
before the previous message. This is easiest when people use top-line posting. But I must confess that I have not always done that in the past.
The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a
mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It
Wrong, please have a read.
See my reply further down.
Thanks!
MZMcBride
Thank you for providing the link. I think this policy must be discussed, as many people will prefer top-line posting, as shown by its popularity on this mailing list.. Inline posting, as demonstrated by this reply, may well obscure the orginal message.
Was that supposed to be an example of a terrible use of inline posting? If so, ha, great job, I couldn't even figure out what was written by you and what was written by Mr. McBride.
BTW, this is supposed to be an example of a good use of top posting.
But in the end, you're just not going to forcibly change the posting habits of others, so I've found it best to just learn to deal with them. Or ignore them depending on how bad it is. This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:58 AM, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to
understand
how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread.
Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person to person.
This makes for far more noise than signal,
True
as people wade through six copies of the
foundation-l footer
Footers should of course be kept brief and to the point, else they become irritating.. Our current footer can probably be reduced to 1 or 2 lines.
or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
content of the reply to the previous message.
Good practice imho is to leave only the previous text, but delete all
text before the previous message. This is easiest when people use top-line posting. But I must confess that I have not always done that in the past.
The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to
a
mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It
Wrong, please have a read.
See my reply further down.
Thanks!
MZMcBride
Thank you for providing the link. I think this policy must be discussed,
as
many people will prefer top-line posting, as shown by its popularity on
this
mailing list.. Inline posting, as demonstrated by this reply, may well obscure the orginal message.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
On 31 March 2010 14:43, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
I am still uncertain whether his comment that it was an example of a 'good toppost' was a joke, because I am getting that feeling.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
Correct. It wasn't worth reading, but it was useful as an example of something that isn't worth reading.
Yeah, it sucks for people reading their mail with a 2400 bps modem, but I don't think everyone else should have to suffer through ambiguous messages for the sake of those few.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Svip svippy@gmail.com wrote:
I am still uncertain whether his comment that it was an example of a 'good toppost' was a joke, because I am getting that feeling.
No, wasn't a joke. Sometimes topposting is good. Specifically, when you are replying to a message in its entirety, and not any particular part of it. This was an example.
MZMcBride wrote:
This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message.
I've pretty much be ignoring this thread, and mark everything as read on arrival. However I'll just like to point out that this attempt to increase signal to noise have now resulted in at present count 29 (yes including mine) pretty much pointless emails...
KTC
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message.
I've pretty much be ignoring this thread, and mark everything as read on arrival. However I'll just like to point out that this attempt to increase signal to noise have now resulted in at present count 29 (yes including mine) pretty much pointless emails...
KTC
It's the end of the month and we've got a quota to fill.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org