• Posts 347
  • Member Since
  • Last Active
Email
  • Location: OK
  • Occupation: App Admin
  • Hobbies: Fast Cars
All Posts Topics Started
Make It Opensource!

It always amuses me to see the people with less than 10 or 20 posts crying the loudest. 

thought type plex

Cool example.  Much more visual than the clunky r-click menu we have today.

Expand just one thought in Normal View
I also like this idea.  It is basically the same thing that suggested several months ago, creating a structured hierarchy view.  In essence, just turn the outline view 90 degrees and allow the tree to be navigated downwards. 

Yes, yes, I know that PB is not a strict hierarchy and some of you will say it is a silly suggestion.  But if it works in the left-to-right outline view, why wouldn't it work in the top-down version of it?
Multiple Columns in Tag List

Instead of multiple columns, I would just prefer to jump to a tag in the list by placing focus on the Tags tab and start typing.  It doesn't make the list any shorter, but it would save a bunch of scrolling.

Ability to Display only selected Tags on thought

Another option that suggested a while back is that al of the selected tags should be displayed at the top of the list instead of buried in the list.

Tag Groups
Sorry it took me so long to get a screen shot, but this is what I'm talking about.  Why does the Tags menu show the full name of the tags and why does the Types menu only show the first two letters of each section?  Why not have a little more consistency in the way the menus are presented?

Tags Menu


Types Menu
Tag Groups
I submitted this same suggestion, but in regards to types, quite a while ago.  I still don't understand why the r-click menus for Tags and Types are so different.  One is broken into two letter sequences, the other displays full names.  I suggested breaking the Type submenus with the SuperType/Type categorization.  Harlan told me that it would slow things down too much.

However it ends up being, I wish it was more consistent between Tags and Types.
improvement of outline view mode
I don't really like this suggestion either.  I use outline view sometimes because I like the order and structure that it provides.  But I also like the fact that it is context sensitive, and only allows for single parent display (it is a cheap and dirty filtered view for me). 

Depending on the active thought, I can filter the view to only display the child thoughts of a particualr thought branch.  If I start adding in a bunch of other thoughts that are not part of this hierarchical structure it would clutter what I am trying to see.  And I would definitely not what parent and child relationships mixed together as appearant children of a non active thought.

dyslucksia wrote:

This example of a multi parent display could be useful at times I suppose, but only if it does not also continue to branch out the children of thought F.  The context of this outline is still A and its children, not unrelated children of F.
More view types in PersonalBrain
Great examples of how these different view could be used.

I vote for:
1) Timelines [8]
2) Logical reasoning [10]
3) Geo maps [4]
4) Tables [3]

I think these would be the most useful to me.  Of course, being able to filter the data each of these views would be applied to is an essential requirement.  (i.e. If I switch to timeline view, I probably don't want to see every single thought in my brain on the timeline, only a selected/filtered subset of thoughts.)
Insert Web Archive into PB (not link)

I currently use CutePDF to print to .pdf files and drag those into the brain.  I've got a virtual thought for a folder that I save things to that I need to drag into the brain at some point.  If there were a way to stream line this process I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Bug: Should say "Welcome To Personal Brain"

LOL... this looks like fun.  Now I just need to be able to define an array of messages and have it randomly pick one to display (at random intervals while I'm working for some comic relief!). 

Bug: Drag and Drog URL to plex
I have replicated this issue on two different computers and get consistent results.  PB is not functioning as expected so I'm going to guess this is a bug.

Set a Tag Thought as the active Thought.  Drag and Drop a URL from IE7 onto the plex.  The new Thought for the URL does not display as a child of the Tag (PB should automatically tag the new Thought with that Tag).  The new Thought does show up in the bread crumb list, as the next to last item.  When I click on the new Thought for this URL, I get an orphaned Thought with no links.

Tested this scenario on:
  1. XP 64-bit with IE7, PB v5.0.2.6
  2. XP 32-bit with IE7, PB v5.0.1.8
Mouse Wheel brain resize in Expanded View
I've complained about this same thing before.  http://forums.thebrain.com/tool/post/thebrain/vpost?id=2948553

twospoons wrote: It would be more "user friendly" (at least in my opinion) if the mouse wheel worked more as a zoom in/out instead of
1) just sizing the text (which then also triggers a bunch of jumbling around of everything on the screen) OR
2) just sizing the links, (which again also triggers a bunch of jumbling around of everything on the screen).

There are times when the selected thought is on a branch all by itself and I have many other thought branches expanded several links away, that no matter how much CRTL + mouse wheel I use to shrink the link distance, the link does not get ANY smaller AT ALL. All the while, the rest of my thoughts are smashed into a heap. I would like to see less jumbling around of the thoughts trying to figure out where they belong, and much more consistency in the ability to zoom in/out on the entire structure as a whole (keeping the proportions of the links and text size similar [FOR THE WHOLE STRUCTURE]).

Time for a Quiz: Consolidating Thought Types and Tags

westbroek wrote: Disclaimer: skimmed over a whole bunch of stuff...

To me this is a pretty moot discussion and certainly not something I would wish any development time to go into. Doing this wouldn't have me fork over another 75 dollar down the line to another major or "major" upgrade...

Yeah, this in and of itself probably wouldn't justify and upgrade for me either.  I'm just throwing stuff out there for people to think about.

Time for a Quiz: Consolidating Thought Types and Tags

dyslucksia wrote: For a start, how silly it would look if Types were displayed in the Plex. Which gates would you use to show their connection, Parent, Child or Jump? None is appropriate.

You are correct, which is why it doesn't use either the Parent, Child or Jump gates.  It uses the TYPE gate.  Look at Harlan's statement:

Harlan wrote: ...there is a single set of thoughts and there are links between those thoughts that indicate parent/child/jump/type...

Type is just a specific gate to a Thought which has been configured as such.  My assumption is that there is also a specific Tag gate (which just happens to link to the same location as the Parent gate, but it is not the parent gate) to link Thought objects as Tags.

dyslucksia wrote: Imagine a Brain with 300 Thoughts, at least 100 of one Type - how ridiculous and unnecessary it would be to display a Type with 100 child Thoughts hanging from it. And what would happen if there was one Supertype with two child Types, one with a linked Thought, shown in the Plex, and you tried to link the Thought to the other type as well, or to the Supertype? No wonder that Types are not shown as Thoughts in the Plex.

Hang on, you are getting ahead of topic at hand.  Let's pretend for a minute that Types and Tags did not exist.  The only options available in the plex are Parent/Child/Jump Thoughts.  Would PB still be useful?  Of course it would.  You could manage your own hierarchy and ontology by simply creating manual links for any relationships you so desired.  This is how I imagine most PB users start out anyway.  Users should be competent enough to manage how many children they put under a particular parent.

So then Types and Tags are introduced.  Now some of the Thoughts that I was using to define my ontology really aren't Thoughts in and of themselves, they are really just a categorization.  So I create a Type for that category and start assigning it to some Thoughts and I get rid of that branch because it is just redundant of the classification that Types offer and I get to put a niffty little icon on all the Thoughts of that Type.  But now I miss seeing those Thoughts grouped together in the plex.  So I start using Tags... and so on.

If I litterally end up with hundreds of Thoughts as "children" (and I use that term loosely) of a Type, is it really the fault of the PB application or do I need to revise my ontology and create a better classification system and hierarchy?  Let's step back into the PB world of no Types or Tags and pretend a user was complaining about having 100 Thoughts as children of a particular parent; what advise would you give them?  Really the same argument could be made against the way you want keywords to show up in the instant search (like you describe here: http://websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/thebrain/vpost?id=3375669&trail=30).  Even if there were a lage number of thoughts in a particular type, I could still find this useful in expanded view as a huge network map.

But let's say I do actually want 100 Thoughts all of the same Type and now my plex is so full I can't read anything.  Now what?  The situation you are describing could easily be managed with Filtered Views or Smart Thoughts.  But now we are venturing beyond the scope of my question.


dyslucksia wrote: It's like saying a train is a form or transport, just like a motor car, but would you let a car drive along railway tracks or a train go down the main street (yeah, I've heard of Brno too)?

But if the thing you are wanting to accomplish is transport a large number of people to a destination where there are no railroad tracks, you could either have them all take the train only so far and then have a car drive back and forth from the depot to the destination with only a couple of people for each trip back and forth.  Or you could scrap the idea of the two separate train and car entities and create a bus that does both, carries a large number of people and is not restricted to the railways of the train.

dyslucksia wrote: On the other hand, this revelation would make it all the easier to create yet another variety of Thought, Keyword, that would fit nicely into the gap between Types and Tags, as I proposed earlier.

True, but would there be any substantially different functionality?  Could you not just enhance the Tag functionality to include your > "see also" instant search / instant activate specific thought?

dyslucksia wrote:
Quote:    1. Thoughts are just Thoughts
   2. Thought Types are just Thoughts
   3. And my hypothesis is that Tags are just Thoughts as well.

Yes, no and no. Just because they live as neighbors in one big database doesn't make them clones.

I didn't say they were clones.  But they are the same sort of objects, which means they could easily inherit the same functionality of the others.


zenrain wrote: As far as I can tell, there would be two benefits of implementing your suggestion. The first, duplicating the list of tags and types I don't consider a benefit. Both have different functionalities (which as you said, they will maintain with the combining), but due to the different functionalities, I may/do want to have different lists.

Yes and no.  I can see your point that you may want different lists.  But the functionalities are not entirely mutually exclusive.  You can group thoughts by Type and you can group thoughts by Tag.  However, Smart Thoughts would be the ultimate way to combine this functionality and still keep things separate as they are today.

zenrain wrote: The second would be it will show types in the plex, similar to tags. I think this would be very useful, but given most everything else would stay the same (besides duplicating thought and tag lists) I'm just not sure why we would have to merge types and tags to do it.

True, being able to display Types in the plex the way that Tags can would have some benefit.  And again, if we just had Smart Thoughts, then all of this would be a wash anyway.


count post selected

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

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software