Hey Folks...

I'm not a group moderator, just a daily visitor and group member, and am wondering if anyone has suggested that posters trim their posts?

Sorting though a mile of the same original post, over and over, leads me to believe perhaps not. When you add a reply to a reply, it begins to grow exponentially.

Trimming the posts makes the thread more readable, and is not only courteous, it looks and is more professional. Yahoo is kind of simple minded in the way it handles the reply button. Why should we be?

Click and drag with the mouse over text that is not needed in the reply and hit Delete. Simple.

This comes up on most Yahoo groups and requires constant reminders everywhere. Please trim your posts, Fellow Computer Professionals!

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I agree 100%

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "macgregor54" wrote:
> ...
> Please trim your posts, Fellow Computer Professionals!
> ...

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I think it's a mixed blessing. Groups like this should be OK to trim - I
think - because the posts
are on Y!430 anyway, and posting implies access to the threads on Y!.
There might be some that still would prefer to have the whole thread
within the same post.
(that is , assuming that all posters keep the thread intact :-) because
there are groups around without archives.
I've occasionally 'dropped in late' in a thread and it's handy to see in a
glance what's been transpiring
in that thread.

So I guess there's pros and cons. Time for a poll ? :-)
This is a bit like the top vs. bottom posting issue.
You could argue endlessly about each's merits. I had to get used to bottom
posting on eg.
Linux groups. In the past I thought that was silly - roll through a mile
long of waffling just to see a small reply at the end.
But somehow it's considered very rude on those groups, hence I go with it.

This group uses top posting and none seem to mind too much.
So I guess, conversely, perhaps it should first be polled what percentage
of members want trimming and then go from there ??

Just my 2*10E-2$ input... :-)

B rgds
Kris

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:44:56 -0000, "old_cow_yellow"
wrote:
> I agree 100%
>
> --- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "macgregor54" wrote:
>> ...
>> Please trim your posts, Fellow Computer Professionals!
>> ...
>

------------------------------------

______________________________
Have a look at the new TI MCU Center on EmbeddedRelated.com!


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

My opinion:
I don't read the posts on the webpage but on the mails I get automatically sent. So I hate it when I read a replay that has neither the previous post nor at least a quote of the relevant portion of the previous post. It might be as simple as hitting "Messages in this topic", but if it's a long discussion it might prove not so easy.

When I press on the 'Reply (via web post)' link I get sent to the webpage, automatically quoting the previous message and with top posting, so those are the rules I follow.

I usually also include the portions of the previous reply(s) I'm replying to, to make it more clear what I'm referring to.

For example, I think OCY post was too trimmed, as for me I had to go to the original post anyway to see what OCY agreed 100% with.

I would only agree to trim the older replies that were left outdated and are no longer relevant to the current discussion, which still isn't the case of the original post.

Sometimes a thread evolves to a discussion that has nothing to do with the Subject original title but retains it. In those cases I'd advice to change the subject but keep .

One has to keep in mind that treads are never "closed" and stay on the forum 'forever'. Keep in mind people will be searching previous treads to find an answer to their current problem. One should make it easy for them to follow the tread.

Now I want to quote a portion of the original post which is still relevant to the discussion, but since it was trimmed by OCY I no longer find it in this reply and have to search for it.
(Now I will be quoting it but because the whole original post is not at the bottom of this reply it might seam/be_taken out of context)

> > > When you add a reply to a reply, it begins to grow
> > > exponentially.
First, it doesn't grow exponentially but ramdomly. If anything it grows linearly (if each reply is of the same size). But so what? Do you mind downloading 1kB more of data? Or 50kB for that matter? Even with bottom posting, you only need to hit or to go to the last post. If you read an older post, would you rather navigate throught the replies back and forth or would you prefer to have the whole story on a single page? (or on the last reply?)
I see no reason to trim older replies as long as they are still relevant for the current discussion, since they may be needed to be quoted.

Well, that's just my opinion.

Regards,
Michael K.

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> I think it's a mixed blessing. Groups like this should be OK to trim - I
> think - because the posts
> are on Y!430 anyway, and posting implies access to the threads on Y!.
> There might be some that still would prefer to have the whole thread
> within the same post.
> (that is , assuming that all posters keep the thread intact :-) because
> there are groups around without archives.
> I've occasionally 'dropped in late' in a thread and it's handy to see in a
> glance what's been transpiring
> in that thread.
>
> So I guess there's pros and cons. Time for a poll ? :-)
> This is a bit like the top vs. bottom posting issue.
> You could argue endlessly about each's merits. I had to get used to bottom
> posting on eg.
> Linux groups. In the past I thought that was silly - roll through a mile
> long of waffling just to see a small reply at the end.
> But somehow it's considered very rude on those groups, hence I go with it.
>
> This group uses top posting and none seem to mind too much.
> So I guess, conversely, perhaps it should first be polled what percentage
> of members want trimming and then go from there ??
>
> Just my 2*10E-2$ input... :-)
>
> B rgds
> Kris
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:44:56 -0000, "old_cow_yellow"
> wrote:
> > I agree 100%
> >
> > --- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "macgregor54" wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Please trim your posts, Fellow Computer Professionals!
> > > ...
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Michael/group,

I think your comments are quite salient and I'd say I agree with your
post.
Perhaps the key is to stick to plain text for starters (I certainly set Y!
to send me plain text Emails) ?

Maybe the only additional comment I have is this :

> Even with bottom posting, you only need to hit or to go
to the last post.

If the reply indeed is consistently at the bottom, yes..
However, the groups that strongly enforce bottom posting seem to have
their share of posts where comments
are interspersed, which causes the need to scroll down. (which kinda
defeats the whole alleged purpose/advantage of bottom posts in the first
place IMO ?)

But I digress, this is after all about trimming replies. The bottom line
is, in general, I only trim the Y! waffle at the end.

> If you read an older post, would you rather navigate throught the
replies
> back and forth or would you prefer to have the whole story on a single
> page? (or on the last reply?)

Too right.
Perhaps my comments in previous post are biased towards posting from Y!
web interface, dunno ? (wrt looking up threads).
FWIW, I never use Y! I/F either - too clunky, too inefficient for my
liking. I only use Email from Y! and reply as such.
So I think all your points are valid, especially re. excessive trimming.
(I'm posting from my webmail instead of my Email client on my own PC, but
I still dislike logging into Y!, regardless btw.)

B rgds
Kris

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:05:19 -0000, "Michael" wrote:
> My opinion:
> I don't read the posts on the webpage but on the mails I get
automatically
> sent. So I hate it when I read a replay that has neither the previous
post
> nor at least a quote of the relevant portion of the previous post. It
might
> be as simple as hitting "Messages in this topic", but if it's a long
> discussion it might prove not so easy.
>
> When I press on the 'Reply (via web post)' link I get sent to the
webpage,
> automatically quoting the previous message and with top posting, so
those
> are the rules I follow.
>
> I usually also include the portions of the previous reply(s) I'm
replying
> to, to make it more clear what I'm referring to.
>
> For example, I think OCY post was too trimmed, as for me I had to go to
> the original post anyway to see what OCY agreed 100% with.
>
> I would only agree to trim the older replies that were left outdated and
> are no longer relevant to the current discussion, which still isn't the
> case of the original post.
>
> Sometimes a thread evolves to a discussion that has nothing to do with
the
> Subject original title but retains it. In those cases I'd advice to
change
> the subject but keep .
>
> One has to keep in mind that treads are never "closed" and stay on the
> forum 'forever'. Keep in mind people will be searching previous treads
to
> find an answer to their current problem. One should make it easy for
them
> to follow the tread.
>
> Now I want to quote a portion of the original post which is still
relevant
> to the discussion, but since it was trimmed by OCY I no longer find it
in
> this reply and have to search for it.
> (Now I will be quoting it but because the whole original post is not at
> the bottom of this reply it might seam/be_taken out of context)
>
>> > > When you add a reply to a reply, it begins to grow
>> > > exponentially.
> First, it doesn't grow exponentially but ramdomly. If anything it grows
> linearly (if each reply is of the same size). But so what? Do you mind
> downloading 1kB more of data? Or 50kB for that matter? Even with bottom
> posting, you only need to hit or to go to the last
post.
> If you read an older post, would you rather navigate throught the
replies
> back and forth or would you prefer to have the whole story on a single
> page? (or on the last reply?)
> I see no reason to trim older replies as long as they are still relevant
> for the current discussion, since they may be needed to be quoted.
>
> Well, that's just my opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Michael K.
>
> --- In m...@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>>
>> I think it's a mixed blessing. Groups like this should be OK to trim -
I
>> think - because the posts
>> are on Y!430 anyway, and posting implies access to the threads on Y!.
>> There might be some that still would prefer to have the whole thread
>> within the same post.
>> (that is , assuming that all posters keep the thread intact :-) because
>> there are groups around without archives.
>> I've occasionally 'dropped in late' in a thread and it's handy to see
in
>> a
>> glance what's been transpiring
>> in that thread.
>>
>> So I guess there's pros and cons. Time for a poll ? :-)
>> This is a bit like the top vs. bottom posting issue.
>> You could argue endlessly about each's merits. I had to get used to
>> bottom
>> posting on eg.
>> Linux groups. In the past I thought that was silly - roll through a
mile
>> long of waffling just to see a small reply at the end.
>> But somehow it's considered very rude on those groups, hence I go with
>> it.
>>
>> This group uses top posting and none seem to mind too much.
>> So I guess, conversely, perhaps it should first be polled what
percentage
>> of members want trimming and then go from there ??
>>
>> Just my 2*10E-2$ input... :-)
>>
>> B rgds
>> Kris
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:44:56 -0000, "old_cow_yellow"
>> wrote:
>> > I agree 100%
>> >
>> > --- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "macgregor54" wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > > Please trim your posts, Fellow Computer Professionals!
>> > > ...
>> >
>>

------------------------------------

______________________________
Have a look at the new TI MCU Center on EmbeddedRelated.com!


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )