May I suggest radio buttons (choose one only) instead of checkboxes for this selection process? This would have the side-effect of also preventing the user from choosing more than one of the suggested similar tags, which IMO is a *benefit*. If the point of the similar tags feature is to rationalize tags, then you really *don't* want a person choosing "Governor Joe Schmoe", "Joe Schmoe", *and* "Mr. Joe Schmoe" anyway, do you?
Someone else suggested this to me as well. I'm still leaning toward checkboxes, and the biggest problem may be my screenshot, which clearly demonstrates, really, only /equivalent/ tags. But that's not the only aspect we should be considering. Take, for example, horses. node #1: Mommy, I'm taking horseriding lessons. I luv'd it so much! node #2: Mommy, I like riding on Palomino horses the best! Whee! node #3: Midget horses are ugly. I topple them like cows! Now, the tags: node #1: horses, horseriding, love, hobby node #2: horses, palomino, wishlist node #3: midget, horses, cows You update #2. It will see "horses", and realize that it is a similar term for "horseriding" (defined in node #1). With radio buttons, this is a problem. You can either keep "horses", which is still accurate, or you can choose ONLY "horseriding", which is also accurate, but on a .. "tinier" level ("horseriding" is a mental child of "horses" - you can't ride a horse without a "horse"). "horses" and "horse riding" could, and probably should, both be applied to node #2 (such that it would show up in a specific search of "horseriding", but also in the more general search of "horses"). With radio buttons, the only way to associate this new, relevant-but-not-equivalent tag, would be to modify the tags manually on the node edit screen. Lots of clicks, and lots of forgetting. Saying that "horseriding" should REPLACE "horses", however, is inaccurate. Node #3 has nothing to do with "horseriding", even though that tag would appear on the "Similar Tags" list. Another possibility (off the top of my head and not fully worked out) is "terrorism" and "terrorist". "terrorism" is the act, "terrorist" is the person. One can not substitute for both (as you can talk about the social aspects of "terrorism" without mentioning a single "terrorist"). -- Morbus Iff ( you are nothing without your robot car, NOTHING! ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ Spidering Hacks: http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005776/disobeycom icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus