ruudhein
That's really cool. Just tested adding a local thought URL from brain1 to a thought in brain2. Works! If needed it will even open that other brain.

Really nice touch. Love it!
Using: Evernote | FilterizeDynalist | InstaPaper | Liner | TheBrain v10.0.30.0
Quote
metta
Thanks so much, Ruud, for letting us know! Just now tested and these cross brain links work with local thought URLs as both attachments and as note links.

This will offer some very interesting possibilities for creating an interactive network of brains, especially if it will eventually work in the web client -- perhaps even connecting brains between users?

Could someone from TB staff let us know whether this cross brain link functionality is planned for the web client, as well?
Quote
shatcher
Hi Metta,

The links generated from a Local Thought URL on desktop will not work correctly on the web. The link in the app starts with "brain://" and on the web it is "http://". The "brain" beginning is to designate to the computer which application that link should default to. I have spoken with our dev team about making this work on both desktop and web clients. It would be a great feature to be able to just use across all platforms.

Cheers, Sean
Quote
metta
Of course! Silly me. Thanks, Sean, for explaining the obvious detail I didn't think through. ðŸ˜‰

In fact, don't we already have this functionality in the web client by simply using web links instead of local links?

Not sure what additional functionality needs to be added to what we already have?
Quote
Harlan
We will eventually make the web client smart enough to switch out the brain:// links to http:// links so that when you use local links they will "just work" when you access them via the web client.
Regards,
-Harlan
Quote
metta
[ deleted ]
Quote
Cerebrum
metta wrote:
This will offer some very interesting possibilities for creating an interactive network of brains
Not quite as useful as it initially appears.

When I first found out about having multiple tabs and multiple brains open at the same time in TB9, I thought that this feature would solve the dilemma of having one mega-brain vs. multiple specialized brains. The second choice is obviously better, right? I can create several interconnected brains, each of which has its own set of Types, Tags and Link Types. Much better than using very long lists in a megabrain that contains many different types of information. Easier to search, easier to maintain, and more powerful.

There are several problems:
1. A link to another brain is not the same as a link between thoughts in the same brain. There's no obvious indication that a thought is linked to another thought. There's a URL link that shows up in Attachments and it has a Brain icon but the link doesn't show the name of the other brain.

2. When you activate a Thought that has a link to another brain, you can't see any of the thoughts in the other brain that are linked to the active Thought. You have to click on the relevant URL link and go to the other brain, at which point you can't see the connected thoughts in the first brain. (You can try playing around with multiple windows to see two or more brains at the same time but this is cumbersome.)

3. Links are just one way. If you link "Thought 1" in "Brain A" to "Thought 1" in "Brain B", there's no automatic link in Brain B that takes you back to Brain A. You have to create a second link.

4. There will probably be some overlap among the various brains in terms of Thought hierarchies, Types, Tags and Link Types (unless each brain is highly specialized) and it becomes confusing to remember which brain has what.

5. It is difficult (thought not impossible) to use the "comma trick" when linking multiple brains. 

5. You can't search multiple brains at the same time. You have to remember which brain has a particular thought, or run multiple searches.

6. You can't look for "Duplicate Names" across multiple brains, or create any Reports that access multiple brains.

7. You can't see the "big picture" of all your thoughts in Outline and Mind Map view, unless you do a ton of cross-linking.

Because of the above limitations, I've gone back to one main brain and one other highly specialized brain.

 

Quote
shatcher
Cerebrum,

The problems seem more like they would be suited to being a separate section of your main Brain rather than an entirely separate file. You could start with an orphaned Thought that was linked by Local Thought URL, and it would act as a sort of secondary Home Thought.

From this orphaned Thought, a new section could be built that would function almost like another Brain, but would utilize the Tags/Types, and be searchable as well. It would also get rid of redundancies of Types/Tags.

Cheers, Sean
Quote
metta
@Cerebrum ~

I've always (strongly) preferred using a megabrain right from when I started using TB 5 years ago (for many of the reasons you mentioned above) -- and I've never had a problem creating/managing a long (nested) list of file types (currently 165).

I was instead referring (simply) to the ease with which I could navigate between my private megabrain and other specialized (topical) brains I've created for sharing with others.

I understand, though, that my use of the word "interactive" might have suggested more to you than simply the benefits of being able to easily navigate between brains -- and the detailed list you've provided above certainly does make a very good case for using a megabrain strategy! ;-)
Quote
metta
@Harlan ~

You wrote: We will eventually make the web client smart enough to switch out the brain:// links to http:// links so that when you use local links they will "just work" when you access them via the web client.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that local links in the web client will eventually "just work" as web links rather than as application links?

When I access a brain in the web, my preference is for a local link to behave as a web link (as they currently do in TB8).

Will be looking forward to your feedback on this issue, Harlan, since it has implications for how we build TB9 brains that will eventually be public and/or shared.

Thanks.
Quote
Cerebrum
metta wrote:
I've never had a problem creating/managing a long (nested) list of file types (currently 165).
That's a lot of types!! ðŸ˜¯

How many do you have at the top level?
Quote
metta
I only have 5 thought types at the top level -- and I don't usually assign any thoughts to these 5 "parent" types since they are only used to organize (sort and sequence) the display of thoughts types in the plex.

Since all my thoughts are organized by type, my type list has been structured to display all the thoughts in the order in which I want them to appear in the plex -- and, since I am extremely visual, all the types have assigned icons, and many of them have assigned colors.

This means the thought type icons, colors and placement in the plex all help me more rapidly find what I'm what I'm looking for in my megabrain.

A little bit more info about my thought types is also posted here, if you are interested in learning more:
Quote

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter        Visit TheBrain Blog   Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Twitter       Like Us on Facebook   Facebook         Circle Us on Google+  Google         Watch Us on Youtube  YouTube       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software