| |
Main
Date: 13 May 2007 13:54:35
From:
Subject: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings FAQ
Introduction
This document is a description of the traditionally accepted "quoting
style" in Usenet newsgroup postings. Please do not consider this to be
a "regulatory" document ("Thou shalt do it this way because we say
so!"), but rather as an "advocacy" document ("A lot of people think
this is a good way to do it, and here's why."). See Q11 below for more
about this.
Q1: What is "quoting" in newsgroup postings?
A1: When you respond to a posting by using your newsreading software's
"reply" command (perhaps called "respond" or "followup"), it's usually
helpful to include ("quote") some of the text from the posting that
you're responding to, to help set the context for your own comments.
For that reason, most newsreading software automatically quotes the
entire posting and prefixes each line with a " >" symbol, or it can be
configured to do so.
Usually you should use this quoted material only as a starting point,
and edit it as discussed below.
Q2: How should I use the quoted text and arrange it with my own text?
A2: In a nutshell, you should quote clearly and selectively, attribute
those quotes properly to the person who wrote them, and place your
comments after the comment(s) that you are responding to, like this:
Newsgroups: alt.tv.gilligans-island
From: Island Fan
Subject: Re: Gilligan's Island Theme Song
Trivia Wiz wrote:
> Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
> Island?
Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.
Q3: Why shouldn't I quote the entire posting that I'm responding to?
A3: First, because it wastes people's time by making them download and
scroll through what amounts to two complete postings. Second, it
wastes network resources and disk space on news servers, most of which
already have a copy of the original posting. These problems are
multiplied when you quote an entire posting that in turn quotes an
entire posting.
Many people (especially outside the United States) have to pay for
their Internet access by the minute and/or by the amount of data
transferred. It costs them money to download "unnecessary" material.
Q4: But isn't it sometimes handy to be able to refer to the entire
previous posting, for example when you see the response first?
A4: Yes! That's why most newsreading software gives you a way to call
up the previous posting, by pressing a key or clicking a button. For
example, Netscape Communicator displays, at the top of each posting, a
"References:" line with a list of numbers highlighted as clickable
links. Clicking on the last number in the list brings up the posting
that the current one is responding to; clicking on the next-to-last
number gives you the previous posting in the chain, etc.
Of course, this works only if your news server hasn't yet "expired"
(removed) the previous posting to make room for new ones. But most
servers keep old postings in discussion groups for several days at
least. If you respond reasonably quickly, most people will have a
chance to read your response before the original posting expires from
their servers.
Q5: But doesn't "trimming" quoted material expose me to charges of
quoting out of context?
A5: Possibly, if you trim with too heavy a hand. Effective "trimming"
is a skill that improves with practice. Most people don't mind
reasonable trimming of their words. If someone complains, look closely
at what you did and re-evaluate your quoting strategy. A few people
object to any trimming of their words, and there's not much that you
can do about that except not to respond to them any further.
Q6: What's this about attributing properly?
A6: Most news-posting software automatically inserts an "attribution
line" at the top of the quoted text from the previous posting. In the
example shown in A2, it's the line that reads, "Trivia Wiz wrote:".
The exact format varies somewhat, depending on what software you're
using. Don't delete it. Keep it so as to show clearly who wrote what
you're responding to.
If you're responding to a posting that in turn is a response to
another posting, etc., you can end up with several "levels" of quoting
from different people. Our Gilligan's Island example might develop
like this:
Newsgroups: alt.tv.gilligans-island
From: GQuest Fan
Subject: Re: Gilligan's Island Theme Song
Nit Picker wrote:
>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>Palm Guy wrote:
>>>Island Fan wrote:
>>>>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>>>>Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
>>>>>Island?
>>>>
>>>>Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.
>>>
>>>What about Mary Ann and the Professor?
>>
>>They weren't mentioned until the second season.
>
>And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.
Those *poor* people.
Different numbers of "quote marks" ( >) at the beginning of each line
indicate different quoting levels. Following one level of quote marks
upwards leads you to the attribution line for that level.
Make sure you keep the attribution lines for all the quoting levels in
your response. Most people don't like having words incorrectly
attributed to them. If an attribution line is missing from a posting
that you're responding to, it's often a good idea to insert one
carefully by hand, if you can figure out for sure who wrote the quoted
text; or at least put in something like "Somebody wrote:".
If your quotes all have proper attribution lines, it's completely
unnecessary to quote people's "signatures" at the ends of their
postings, so delete them. They just take up space. (Unless, of course,
you're commenting on the signature itself!)
Q7: Why shouldn't I put my comments above the quoted material?
A7: Keep in mind that you're not writing just for the person whose
posting you're responding to. (If you are, you should be e-mailing
your response instead of posting it.) Thousands of other people may
read what you write. People who aren't directly involved in a
discussion themselves, and who are probably following several
discussions at once, usually follow the logic more easily when they
can read the material in more-or-less chronological order.
When you have just a single question and response, and they're both
short, and the discussion doesn't develop any further, it really
doesn't make that much difference in practice. But it's impossible to
predict in advance whether a response will draw another response. So
in general, it's best to put your response below the text that you're
responding to.
For example, take our extended Gilligan's Island discussion from A6
above, and rearrange it so that everybody puts their comments before
the material that they quote:
Newsgroups: alt.tv.gilligans-island
From: GQuest Fan
Subject: Re: Gilligan's Island Theme Song
Those *poor* people.
Nit Picker wrote:
>And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.
>
>Trivia Wiz wrote:
>>They weren't mentioned until the second season.
>>
>>Palm Guy wrote:
>>>What about Mary Ann and the Professor?
>>>
>>>Island Fan wrote:
>>>>Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.
>>>>
>>>>Trivia Wiz wrote
>>>>>Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
>>>>>Island?
Now it's time for a pop quiz:
Which version (the one in A5 or the one above) reads more
coherently?
Is GQuest Fan's "punch line" funnier at the top or at the
bottom? (If you've never watched Gilligan's Island, you may
skip this question.)
For extra credit: Who is "they" - Mary Ann and the Professor
or the Howells and Ginger ?
In a more realistic example, the attributions would often be longer,
the quotations longer, and there would be some mostly-blank lines
separating paragraphs. The whole message body might be longer than
would fit on one screen, making it harder to match quotes to
attributions, and responses with questions or other antecedents.
(Many thanks to Denis McKeon for this example.)
Q8: When I start composing a response, my news-posting software always
puts the insertion point above the quoted material. Doesn't that mean
that "top posting" is the normal thing to do?
A8: Not necessarily. Some people theorize that the designers of such
software aren't very familiar with newsgroups and the conventions that
have developed in them. Another possible explanation is that many
programs use the same modules for composing e-mail and newsgroup
messages, and sometimes when you're responding to an e-mail message,
it may make sense to append the entire original message to the end.
(The recipient may not have filed a copy of his/her original message,
or it may not be as easy to get to as with a preceding newsgroup
message.)
With such software, a good strategy is to scroll downward, deleting
excess text as you go. When you reach something that you want to
comment on, put the insertion point after it and put your response (to
that point) there.
Q9: But if I put my comments after the quoted text, won't people have
to scroll all the way to the bottom to read them?
A9: If you delete unnecessary quoted text, they shouldn't have to go
far, not even a screenful. If you're responding to more than one
point, you should intersperse your comments among sections of quoted
text, in point-counterpoint style. Put a blank line between each
section, to help the reader distinguish them.
Besides, if you put your comments at the top, many people are going to
scroll all the way to the bottom anyway, wondering whether you have
anything more to say!
Q10: Shouldn't we be paying attention to what a person says, rather
than the cosmetic details of how it's said?
A10: In newsgroups, as well as in real life, people form judgments
about others, consciously or unconsciously, based on their appearance.
In newsgroups, your words are the only "visible" evidence that people
can judge you by. Spelling, grammar and formatting all contribute to
people's impressions of you, and have at least some influence on how
seriously other people will take you.
Also, these considerations don't affect just the cosmetic appearance
of what you write. They also affect how easy it is for people to read
it, and understand the points that you're trying to make. In general,
people don't like to be slowed down by scrolling through unnecessary
material, or by having to stop and re-construct the logical sequence.
It's good to organize and edit quoted words logically, for the same
reason that it's good to organize and edit your own words logically.
It basically comes down to a question of etiquette, if you view the
fundamental principle of etiquette as "Thou shalt not make life
unnecessarily difficult for other people," and factor in the number of
people who may read your postings.
Q11: Who made these rules, anyway? Who enforces them?
A11: Nobody in particular made these "rules". They developed over the
years, based on the experience of people who use newsgroups a lot, and
who like to be able to read and participate in many discussions
efficiently. Nobody really "enforces" them, in the sense that nobody
can deny your posting privileges for violating them. (An exception
might be if a newsgroup is moderated, and the group requires a
particular quoting style.) The only sense in which they can be
"enforced" is by peer pressure: that is, your readers may complain to
you about your quoting style.
In some newsgroups, if you quote the entire previous posting and put
your comments above it, people are likely to "flame" you for "top
posting" or posting "Jeopardy style" (after the U.S. TV game show in
which contestants first see an answer and then have to come up with
the corresponding question). This is more likely in groups that have a
high concentration of long-time newsgroup users. They're not really
doing this as a "power trip" (at least not usually); they're genuinely
irritated at what they see as the waste of network and human resources
that such postings entail.
In other newsgroups, you don't see much visible acrimony about "top
posting," but that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't matter.
People may simply be more polite in those groups. After all, most
people agree that it's a Good Thing to use correct spelling and
grammar, but they also agree that it's usually in bad taste to correct
mistakes publicly. Therefore, we recommend that you use the "standard"
quoting style described here unless you have clear evidence that
people in a particular newsgroup actively prefer another style; for
example if an FAQ mentions it, or if more people actually complain
about "bottom posting" than about "top posting."
------------------------------------------------------------------
This FAQ is collectively maintained by members of the
news.newusers.questions Moderation Board and nnq-workers mailing list.
For more information, please email nnq-admin@presby.edu
This individual document is maintained by: Jon Bell
(jtbell@presby.edu).
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html
This individual document may be copied and redistributed freely.
It is to be considered material of the Public Domain and we accept
no liabilities for use of its contents. If you feel that any of the
contents of this page are in violation of your own copyright, please
email the maintainer. Please contact the maintainer of the document
if you have suggestions for improvements or additions to this document.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 13:23:48
From:
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
On May 13, 3:36 pm, SkySea <Sky...@aolREMOVE.com > wrote:
> I find it heartening that thre are still people with few enough
> problems in their lives that this kind of topic ranks as important
> enough to divert the newsgroup form its actual purpose.
>
I agree. The first three messages in this thread total somewhere
around 15000 characters.
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 12:36:27
From: SkySea
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
I find it heartening that thre are still people with few enough
problems in their lives that this kind of topic ranks as important
enough to divert the newsgroup form its actual purpose.
=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 21:34:18
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
SkySea wrote:
> I find it heartening that thre are still people with few enough
> problems in their lives that this kind of topic ranks as important
> enough to divert the newsgroup form its actual purpose.
Zing! Good one.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 16:49:11
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
"invalid" (how apropos!) wrote:
> Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings FAQ...
(A whole passel of profoundly stupid drivel snipped.)
> Therefore, we recommend that you use the "standard"
> quoting style described here..."
Truly, I would love to talk to the person or persons who decided that
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
represent "standard" quoting!
Whoever you are, maybe you're reading this. I'll pretend that you are.
Listen up, knuckle-dragger: "Standard quoting" (did you coin that
idiotic term as well?) consists of marks that somewhat resemble these
" ". This is an approximation; the use of symbols that mean inches or
arc-seconds for quotation marks is a holdover from typewriter days.
(See "The Mac is Not a Typewriter: A Style Manual for Creating
Professional-Level Type on Your Macintosh" by Robin Williams. Read it
even if you don't use a Mac, because computer operating systems develop
rather rapidly, and it won't be too many years before, say, MS Windows
can do everything the Mac could do in 1984. But that 's another
subject.) You, dear knuckle-dragger, are using the Unix shell to draw
ASCII art, while the rest of us have moved on.
Here is how "standard quoting" would appear in a Usenet-thread:
Sally wrote:
"I believe that all telescope tubes should be painted pink."
John replied:
"I beg to disagree. I think that OTA's should be painted baby blue."
Then, Andy said:
"You're both wrong. OTA's should be painted white so that one has a
better chance of finding them in the dark. Glow-in-the-dark paint would
be nice, too."
My own opinion is that telescope tubes should come primed so that the
owner might paint them any color (s)he wishes. I would like mine to
have orange flowers on it, like a 1960's Volkswagen Hippy Bus.
*****
And that, knuckle-dragger, is "standard quoting." It is so "standard"
that it has been adopted in that general form by users of non-Roman
writing systems that do not ordinarily employ punctuation.
So, knuckle-dragger, let's make a deal. I don't tell you how to write
computer code (because that's not in my field of expertise) and you
don't tell me how to write simple English sentences (because writing
simple English sentences is /far/ beyond your field of expertise.)
Oh, yes, knuckle-dragger, I know what this is about. You can't tell who
said what unless each person's writing is in a different color and is
preceded by a different number of symbols. But the high frequency of
misattributions seen in Usenet threads -- particularly long threads --
reveals that your system doesn't work very well. Get yourself some
books. Not more elegaic reflections on the NAND gate, but modern
novels with a lot of dialogue. (Dialogue means "people talking.") Read
them over and over until you can recognize who said what when the type
is all the same color and each quote has only one of these " in front
and behind.
Thank you.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 23:57:56
From:
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
Davoud wrote:
(nothing worth quoting)
The fact that you can't make your point with logic or evidence
is evident by your decision to engage in personal attacks and
childish insults.
Your opinion is based on the false assumption that the rules
for typed or handwritten letters apply everywhere. They don't.
Usenet, movie scripts, and messages sent by morse code are just
a few examples of communications that have different standards.
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 21:56:03
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:49:11 GMT, Davoud <star@sky.net > wrote:
>Listen up, knuckle-dragger: "Standard quoting" (did you coin that
>idiotic term as well?) consists of marks that somewhat resemble these
>" ".
Not in email and Usenet it doesn't. That's "standard quoting" in an
entirely different context.
>Here is how "standard quoting" would appear in a Usenet-thread:
>
>Sally wrote:
>"I believe that all telescope tubes should be painted pink."...
Yeah, right. Do it that way if you want to make a fool of yourself.
The FAQ that was posted is, for the most part, quite reasonable (if a
bit dated in places). The style it recommends, which has been standard
in the Usenet community for a long time, does produce easy to follow
discussions.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 10:10:39
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: FAQ: Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
|
Davoud wrote:
> Truly, I would love to talk to the person or persons who decided that
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
>
> represent "standard" quoting!
It is a long-standing convention on Usenet. Not the only one, of
course, but probably the one with the most tradition behind it. And
with conventions, tradition counts for quite a bit.
> Oh, yes, knuckle-dragger, I know what this is about. You can't tell who
> said what unless each person's writing is in a different color and is
> preceded by a different number of symbols. But the high frequency of
> misattributions seen in Usenet threads -- particularly long threads --
> reveals that your system doesn't work very well.
Invalid could have put it better, but this is not the fault of the
system, since many people don't follow the convention; many people
follow no convention aside from what their newsreader provides for them
ab initio. When used properly, the convention works very well, even in
black and white. The color is a feature of the newsreader, not the
convention.
The problem with quotation marks as used in standard English is that it
doesn't work well with the Usenet model, which typically involves long,
nested threads. You and I both commonly pull out separate quotations
and set them separately (you more consistenly than I), but it's rather a
bit of work and consequently it's pretty rare to see. And if you don't
do that, then quotation marks are unworkable. Also, it's inappropriate
if the quoted material is, say, an equation or a piece of code--not
altogether uncommon on a sci.* newsgroup.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
|
