Hi Craig, one solution to your question (below).

Also, a counterpart rule to "Please use new threads for new threads"
is, "Please don't start new threads for the same thread".  :-)  e.g.,
by changing the subject twice there are now three separate "threads"
which are really the same thread. (see screenshot)

(As an experiment, I've composed this "reply" anew, but C&P'd the
subject-line from Craigs last post because I want to see whether Gmail
renders this as a new thread or whether it collates it by the subject
line).

>      Short: Yeesh, I'm deleting this thread for sure. :)
>
>      Long:
>
>      This matters to me, because I want to be informed while having
> limited time to spend.
>
>      Naturally, I wondered how I might fix this myself, leaving the
> delicate sensibilities of my fellow raconteurs untrodden. I'm not sure
> what fix would work.

A separate Gmail account dedicated to mailing-list reading and
responding.  It lets the tail wag the dog and still presents threads
collated by subject-line..

> Sometimes a reply has nothing to do with the
> message to which the responder is replying, and the subject line is
> totally different. Sometimes a reply is actually a response, and the
> subject line might be the same ("hyperbole is great!"), somewhat
> different ("perhaps communication is better [was: 'hyperbole is
> great!']"), or totally different. Using simple message ID references and
> the conventions of normal conversation, without turning it into an AI
> project, seems the best we can manage.

I totally agree, in principle!  If there's a graph of message id's,
the mail clients ought to make use of it over Stringy matching!  Just
like I wish Eliot and Bert would use the graph of ancestry in
Monticello rather than stringy name matching for "branches"..   :)