[snip]

***********
>Anyone can 'assign' a weighting or a 'relevance tag' to a POST or REPLY. here's a thingie -
>poster - can assign
>replyer - can assign
>reader - can assign, reassign.
>these assignings can happen anytime - when posting, replying, or reading.
>So if a user replies back but KNOWS it isn't relevant to the *topic* then they can assign it themselves.
>Similarly, a reader can assign a relevance tag on any message during the 'read'
>
>Now the relevance tag might be
>Relevant
>Not Relevant
>Somewhat Relevant

In a vocal conversation people use their voice, hands, face, etcetera, to express the relevance of a remark. This way they express whether it is meant as a 'by-the-way' remark or as a joke or as a next serious argument. In threads we have the emoticons. Currently, to see those emoticons and to find out the relevance, we have to read the whole message. An alternative might indeed be to have message-tags. However, how would you assign tags if a reply contains both a serious remark and a joke? A tag-system must enable us to deal with that situation, since it happens a lot.


***********
[snip]
>Unfortunately - it is sink/swim currently. Current Categories are cool - no need to CHANGE THEM - and basically if you are replying in a current category then say - "OH BTW - did you see Bonnie's hairdo on Weds at Devcon "- which spouts another 200 replies with the SAME TOPIC NAME [as opposed to 'Did you see Bonnie's HairDo?] - then I view the misdirection as chaff.

I agree, this is an example of chaff! But other branches are not necessarily chaff. Suppose the original post is a request for help with regard to the use of macros and someone replies "BTW - macros are a horror" and this remark invokes 300 interesting replies? It is this kind of branches that I want to deal with.


***********
>>Your re-assign idea requires a moderator, I guess. Sounds okay to me. Maybe the originator of the thread can also be a moderator.
>*---
>possibly- but maybe not??? would it be possible to EDIT topic/subject when replying? that kinda was where I first started with this - but now more interested in 'relevance tag'

Did you read my other reply where I introduced 'FCT'? I think tagging and redeclaring the FCT are two strategies that might merge together well.