Besides the actual content, of course, proper formatting of your Usenet
news postings can significantly enhance the effectiveness and
credibility of your postings. Let's consider the issue of proper
quoting of the postings you are responding to. I am sure that you
have seen text quoted innumerable times in the following manner:
> This is quoted text
The number one rule of quoting is quote
judiciously. Quote only what is essential to make it
possible for the reader to understand what your posting or email
message is about. As a rule avoid quoting an entire message
(signatures and all). It is not judicious to quote, say, a hundred
lines of discussion just to input a single line of one's own. Proper
quoting is a skill. If you are going to quote, devote some time to
working the quote appropriately. Don't be lazy in this respect.
A further tip adapted from Mark Rogers. Leave a blank line after the quoted text
before you insert your own because else your text and the quoted
text will difficult to distinguish from each other.
Where is the best place to put quoted text?
Above or below my comments?
From an unknown origin:
A: Top posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on
Usenet?
Above! Some more recent standard
email and newsreader programs have assumed a very problematic
feature. They include the message which you are responding to below
your message. Don't allow that to happen. The proper order
is
> Quote 1 (properly pruned)
Your response 1
> Quote 2 (properly pruned)
Your response 2
In other words
Put each, appropriately trimmed item that you choose to quote
before each of your own comments, respectively.
Remove any remaining "postquoting". Let me emphasize. Do
not leave the entire earlier posting, which you have been
responding to, at the end of your own posting.
Some (often obscure) Usenet newsgroups and Microsoft's own
newsgroups (hardly surprising!) may show and have developed
different preferences and practices as to the order and extent of
quoting. This definitely is not what to go by in general on the
Usenet news. Also, one of the arguments that has been posed in favor
of the excessive quoting is that threads may be broken and full
quoting is therefore imperative to be able to follow what is going
on. No, that is what the news repositories are for. Besides, in
well-planned quoting it is amply sufficient to give the essence.
Concise and at the same time informative quoting indeed is a skill
to be practiced.
Of course it is fair to ask why
> Quote 1 (properly
pruned) Your response 1 > Quote 2 (properly
pruned) Your response 2
is better than
Your entire response
> All old quoted
Email and Usenet news are typically used for modern, often almost
real-time exchanges which can closely resemble a verbal discussion
rather than a correspondence by snailmail where the time between the
letters is days or weeks. In a good discussion one interacts, rather
than keeps up separate monologues. Thus it is very natural to quote
a point, respond, quote the second point, respond and so forth.
Adapted from an advisory posting by Bob Gootee: Answering above
the original message is called top posting. Sometimes also called
the Jeopardy style. Usenet is Q & A not A & Q. (The name
obviously comes from the game of Jeopardy, where the competitor is
given the answer before the question.)
A similar point from a posting by Tuomas Venhola: If you start with
your answer, it is a bit like telling the punch-line before giving
the background.
As for the Microsoft's public newsgroups even there the official
policy warns against quoting below your
answer and against excessive quoting!
Be accurate with your attributions. That is in displaying who said
what. In particular, if for the flow of the text you have to quote
text that already is quoted, it may become quite difficult to get it
right who actually said what. Be very careful not to indicate that
someone said what in fact was written by someone else.
Consider a multiple quoting example below from a humor newsgroup.
Try to follow who said what?
Zevra, my very own groupie <feldco@atol.net.invalid> wrote:
>Greg Evans <gregevans@town.net.invalid> wrote:
>>*Again* with the puns! You should maybe see a doctor.
>You think Timo would see me on such short notice?
Good brief!
Zevra, my very own groupie <feldco@atol.net.invalid> wrote:
>Greg Evans <gregevans@town.net.invalid> wrote:
>>*Again* with the puns! You should maybe see a doctor.
>You think Timo would see me on such short notice?
Good brief! Are there any situations where top posting is warranted?
I would say, on the Usenet news, simply no!
However, in business or other professional email correspondence the
situation is more involved. If a discussion is prolonged and
especially if other parties are later drawn into the discussion, for
full documentation (sometimes involving official or even legal
purposes) top posting could be considered an operational, valid
alternative. Much depends on your office practices.
To better understand this aspect, consider how fundamentally
different Usenet news and email threads can be, despite the
superficial similarty.
On the Usenet news all the readers have access to the earlier
postings (on one's ISP and even far back on Google). There is no
need to repeat by quoting everything that has been said before,
because it can be backtracked fairly easily. Full quoting is just
wasteful and disturbs the flow of the discussion. There is no valid
reason to drag on to old load nor to top-post.
In email the situation can occasionally be very different. For
example, new parties from outside the original distribution of the
email thread may have to brought up to speed about all the details
of a discussion or other official business that has been going on.
For bringing in the additional parties, and even for record keeping,
it can make perfect archiving sense to store the entire thread as it
evolves. In such cases it is quite common and acceptable to add the
new parts of the messages on top of the old thread, i.e. to
top-post. But keep in mind that this particular case is about
email, not about the Usenet news. Nor is top-posting a norm in
email, but there can be these motivations.
My replies on a newsgroup are met with a
notice "A News NNTP error: Article not posted - more included text
than new text". What's the score?
Well the message is very obvious. What happens is that some
newsprograms indeed refuse to do the posting if you have written
less than quoted. The solution is as obvious. Quote more
judiciously.
But what if you absolutely need to quote more? First be very sure
about it! The quote character usually is ">". Try changing it.
How to do that depends on your environment. I'll leave finding out
the rest up to you.
Spam (unsolicited commercial advertising), and various types of scam
such as chain letters (illegal in many countries) are a big nuisance
both in email and on the Usenet news. Do not aggravate the situation
by fully quoting such a scam on the news. Most users who do it do it
out of ignorance. However, occasionally the fully-quoting complaint
is just a pretense to get away with posting more spam. It is a
well-known ploy.
Furthermore, even the genuine complaining about spam on the
newsgroup is a wasted effort. The spammers seldom stay around to
read the postings in the newsgroups, which they pester with their
unwelcome material. If you truly wish to do something about the
posted spam, find out where it comes from, and email a complaint to
the proper abuse address. Since much, if not most, of the spam comes
from forged addresses, you'll first need to find out where it
actually originated. Services such as Spamcop can be used for that
purpose. There also are further
useful links about spam on
my advice web pages.
The posting that I
consider quoting has an "X-No-Archive: yes" header. Does that mean I
shouldn't quote at all, since the quoting in my reply would end up
in the news archives?
I am not aware of an established netiquette practice in this
respect, so I'll give my personal view. The header is above all a
technical signal from the poster to the news repositories not to
store the posting. Reasons for using it can be many, such as e.g.
avoiding regular FAQ postings from overly repeating themselves.
Even if the original posting has been marked for not to be stored on
the news repositories, it was publicly posted, right? In my
view, as long as you otherwise observe the proper netiquette in your
reply and only quote judiciously as explained on this page, it is
up to you what you post and what you don't. The reply is yours, not
the original poster's.
There is a further, practical aspect. Not all the program for
reading the news will necessarily show that header, so human readers
can well miss it. Besides, there is bound to be a lot of users on
the world wide net who have no idea what such a header means even
should they see it.
In summary, I would say that you can safely ignore a "X-No-Archive: yes" header when you
respond.
John Savage added a tip to this by pointing out that if one is extra
anxious about it, one can, of course, drop out the attributions from
one's own posting. The problem, however, is that (unless stated) how
does one really know the original reason for using the X-No-Archive
designator.
Quite another question is when one should use the X-No-Archive
header in the first place. This is mostly outside the scope of this
particular page, but for example I set the header to my automatic
FAQ postings. It is not very useful to have such frequent material
in the repositories in multiple copies.
Especially if and when you quote from outside sources, copyright
issues can arise in quoting. They are beyond this FAQ, but there are
some links to copyright considerations at the end of this page.
However, the very least one should take care that one gets one's
attributions right.
Forwarding and signatures
Forwarding is a close relative of quoting. The top / bottom
sequencing of the message parts can have consequences: