westbroek
As said, I'm doing my biggest overhaul ever

Intrigued what others are using off the starting point of their brain. What are you main thoughts, the first layer?
Quote
westbroek
Expressed myself wrong, yes: what are the thoughts directly after the home thought.

I had a bunch of stuff there: 12+ thoughts. Some of them there just because I had no idea where else to put them. Others because sometimes you need to have stuff in your face or forget about it.
Quote
Steeph
westbroek wrote:
As said, I'm doing my biggest overhaul ever

Intrigued what others are using off the starting point of their brain. What are you main thoughts, the first layer?


None.
My home thought has about 20 children of websites I like to read daily, but these are not main thoughts. For the rest everything is just stored and connected as I see fit. I don't think hierarchical, do you?
PB user since 1998

Mind over matter?
I don't mind and it doesn't matter.
TB 8.0.2.1 Pro on Win10.1 Pro 64bit JVM 1.8.0-112
Quote
westbroek
Well, I don't like a home thought with 200 child thoughts branching off So I have to go somewhere from the Home thought, no?

I've found People to be a great starting point. From it my family, friends and contacts branch. Attached to many of those are places, childhood memories, jobs, companies, etc.

"Work" obviously is one, too. Great starting place to branch out from.
Quote
zenrain
I have People, Personal, Reference, Places, Websites, Work.
As jump thoughts I have Calendar and Inbox.
Windows 7
J-1.6.0_22
--
OSX 10.6.3
Java SE 6
Quote
Shiiko
I have:

Yo ( I )  (home thought)
Shiiko Personal Shiiko Business (children)

From Yo, I go up to mind, self, spirit, will, soul
From SP or SB, I go down to all the earth stuff.

Quote
westbroek
What a beautiful idea to have those thoughts above "I", Shiiko.

If I may be so intrusive, what kind of thoughts are under mind, self, spirit, will, soul?
Quote
greenwood
I have off the home thought, actionable items, favs which are sub divided as jump points into various areas and then I follow wiki categories so there are two main roots in: Contents which mainly leads into Fundamental providing a fairly abstract root and the second (also a sub-topic of Articles) is Main Topics which provides a more subject focused route in.

There are some other interesting routes in mainly from meta thoughts like Categories by topic for example.

Anyway using wiki categories maybe too over classified for most people but for me it removes the need to invent and reinvent, also most thoughts can be got to through three letter searches ("pol sci" to get to political science). Another nice feature is that the categories sometimes have jumps instead of heirachies (for example public opinion and public relations are sub-categories of each other).



Quote
zenrain
Greenwood, just wanted to say thank you for your comment on wiki categories.

I've ended up implementing it in my brain, and it's added quite a bit of depth and cross referencing. In my case I've copied some of the top and lower level categories and assigned them all the "Category" thought type. I also assigned them a color so I can easily tell the different between the category and a non-category parent thought.

As an example, LaunchBar is an Mac Application, and has multiple parents but it's easy to tell at a glance which category it's in because categories are purple. In this case it's the Launchers category under the Utility Applications category. Also, for those interested, I also only use one link type called Primary (the yellow thick link). In the example below, Objective Development is the primary link as they are the company that created LaunchBar. I also use primary for the relationship between books and their authors, albums and the band, etc.


Click image for larger version - Name: Untitled.png, Views: 492, Size: 559.06 KB
Windows 7
J-1.6.0_22
--
OSX 10.6.3
Java SE 6
Quote
JonnyB
Quote:
I've ended up implementing it in my brain, and it's added quite a bit of depth and cross referencing. In my case I've copied some of the top and lower level categories and assigned them all the "Category" thought type. I also assigned them a color so I can easily tell the different between the category and a non-category parent thought.

As an example, LaunchBar is an Mac Application, and has multiple parents but it's easy to tell at a glance which category it's in because categories are purple. In this case it's the Launchers category under the Utility Applications category. Also, for those interested, I also only use one link type called Primary (the yellow thick link). In the example below, Objective Development is the primary link as they are the company that created LaunchBar. I also use primary for the relationship between books and their authors, albums and the band, etc.


Are you still using this system, Zenrain?  I am starting to use it and think it is brilliant.  Simple and effective.

Quote
zenrain
Yes, I am. I've found it gives me two ways to approach my data: through relationships and what they mean to me, and through an overall categorization scheme.
Additionally, for standalone thoughts, or information that I'm just storing in case I need it later, I put it in the appropriate category, and I don't need to make obscure links about what they may mean to me at some point.

Edited (2009-11-19): Fixed misspelling, hopefully makes more sense now.
Windows 7
J-1.6.0_22
--
OSX 10.6.3
Java SE 6
Quote
tcahill
westbroek wrote:
Intrigued what others are using


Starting point! Main thoughts! first layer!

What great ideas. Do you mean to imply that there is a layout alternative to 'fog' ?

Actually, while I am kidding, the truth hurts.  I'm with Steeph. I do always start with some kind of organization; that rapidly becomes quaint as linkages and details evolve.

For this reason, I spend my time as: 85% expanded, 13% Outline, 2% normal. I return to normal as a last resort attempt to get locally oriented.

I guess I'm a fringe kind of guy, as that is where I spend most of my time. It struck me while reading westbroek's comments just how unfamiliar sounding his reference points sounded to me. I could try to implement them, but I think that would be just more additions to the fringe.
Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting wabbit.
Quote
zenrain
Quote:
Actually, while I am kidding, the truth hurts.  I'm with Steeph. I do always start with some kind of organization; that rapidly becomes quaint as linkages and details evolve.


Generally if it's completely new information it gets shuttled off to a fairly appropriate category / area, and that's about all. I only start defining, organizing and fleshing out areas I spend time in. As I'm in the area I'm usually asking myself if I need to cross reference with anything, if the information makes sense to me, should I categorize it, etc.
However, if I'm adding information to an already organized section of my brain there is already a structure that I can put the information into.

I've found that trying to bring order to a brain as I'm adding information just doesn't work well for me. It's only after the information density hits a certain critical mass that I start to organize.
When I first started using PB, I made the mistake of trying to impose a fairly restrictive order and categorization method immediately. It didn't work. I ended up adding all kinds of needless categorization thoughts, parent thoughts that didn't make sense later on.

I guess it's important to add that I'm a "One Brain to Rule them all" user. I have sections of my brain that are extremely organized and have an internal structure that's independent of my categorization methodology. This structure arose and has been refined over constant use.
I have other area's that are a shovebox of information that's loosely categorized. I have other areas that are organized by their own structure, and are also included in my categorization method because of the way I want to view, report on, or divide the information.

As dyslucksia says, it's difficult to look at other peoples databases and make sense of it. PB allows for a huge range of organizational methods (and still growing as features are added), and by it's very nature the structure is subjective. So personal databases are just that. They need to be organized in a fashion that makes the most sense to the person using it, and presents the information the way they need. The only time a brain should immediately make sense to others, is if it specifically designed to do so. This means a group of people agree on a specific viewpoint and language, and design the database structure based on this. It can work (and does with EKP), but it's based on a common knowledge and understanding.

And with all that said, who wants to look at my vacation pictures?



Windows 7
J-1.6.0_22
--
OSX 10.6.3
Java SE 6
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