advisors
This will be a long discussion, so bare with me as I set the first steps.

"Links" (the ability to "link" thoughts, to give meaning to WHAT links them and not only what the thoughts are about) are likely the most important feature of "Mind Mapping", at least the one I'm looking for (in comparison with "standard" document/thoughts classification).

And it's easy enough to create links in TB.
And I appreciate the fact I can link not only in a "hierarchical" way (parent/child, as most MM tools allow), but also "horizontally" ("jump" as it's called in TB).

So far, so good.

Now here starts the problems.

If I delete (forget) a thought, all it's links are deleted (forgotten) also.
Seems to make sense, but sometimes there's meaningful information IN THE LINKS I don't want to lose.

Here's an example.

Unfortunately I've created the same thought twice, once named "Specialisation" and one "Specialization".

The first is child of "Mathematics", and the second of "Physics".

One easy way to solve my problem would be to delete one of the "Speciali(s/z)ation" thoughts.

But then I'd lose it's links.

So I could "relink" "Physics" to "Specialisation" and then delete "Specialization".
But if I had any information ON THE link (from Physics to Specialization), I'd lose it.

There no (to my knowledge) way for me to "relink" a link (to change it's extremities).
I can not simply take/drag one of it's extremities to an other thought.

To my knowledge, I can also not search "links".

So here's my suggestion:

Why not implement "links" as fully fledged "thoughts" ?

A "link" would be nothing but a thought.
In order to keep the existing (visual) design, we could agree that as long as a link has no name, it does not (visually) appear (other than by the line representing it (the link).

Now as soon as a "link" would be given a name, it would (could/should) appear (as a small dot in the middle of the link ?).

One could move / drag that "link" just as  any other "thought".
(Actually a "link" is nothing but a "thought" which "links" two thoughts ...
This "link" type of thought has "incoming" and "outgoing" "links (visual lines)" (to the thoughts it links)).

Now I could do what ever I want with my link(s).
(The example I've given is with just one "link", if there are many links, it becomes really cumbersome to preserve those links when deleting a thought).

An option at delete (forget) could allow/ask if one WANTS to delete all related links (so not to create to opposite problem, which would be to remain with many unrelated links, and have to delete them one by one ...).

Please ?
Quote
Kriggel23
Interesting ideas, really! I give a +1!

As a consequence I see multiple links between two thoughts, not just one as today ...

Sample: a person (first thought), and a film (second thought). Possible links: "person is an actor in film", "person is producer of film".
And on search: "who is actor in film ...", "which persons acted within the same films ..."

Kriggel23

Quote
perry
Yes: Interesting.

I wonder if one aspect - moving links from one thought to another thought (maybe in preparation to forgetting) could be achieved by dragging the thought that will lose its links onto the thought that will gain its links (probably with a modifier: CTRL / ALT / etc)... so:
  1. Drag Thought 1 (which has two parent links and 5 child links) onto Thought 2 (which has one parent link and 1 child link)
  2. Thought 2 ends up with 2 parent links and 6 child links (if they're all different)
  3. Thought 1 ends up an orphan
  4. TB could ask if Thought 1 should be forgotten
I'm not sure if I've completely understood, but the above workflow would be helpful in cleaning up parts of my brain.
Quote
zenrain
These are good points.
As soon as information that is not a link type or link label is added to a link (notes, attachments etc), the information should persist. In other words, it shouldn't be easy to delete or lose the information just by unlinking the connected thoughts, or re-linking them. Also, it should be searchable. So far so good.
Now it gets dicey.

When I started thinking and trying to write about an interface/method to re-connect links to different thoughts, and one that was relatively understandable to a non-power user I started to get a headache. Designing this in the current framework would be a challenge. Just look at the pre-9 version of how to adjust link types. It was hidden and rather hard to explain. Now think about trying to designate one end vs another end to an existing thought, but only when a link is selected and in a way that is easy to tell that it's not a thought to thought connection, but a link to thought connection.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think it's non-trivial to implement in a way that is readily understandable and useable by non-power users. Of course, I could be completely mistaken and the answer is staring me in the face.
Update: Of course, now I've typed this post, I realized that Advisor included the resolution in his already. If you hold down a modifier while selecting a gate, you could be modifying the link instead of the thought connection. For example, you hold down alt and click the child gate of a thought. You are now dragging the link between the parent and child thought from the parent end. You can now either drag it to an on screen thought and link it, or type the name of the thought to replace the parent connector. If there's already a link between the two you can choose to replace it or undo.
So yay me for reaching reading comprehension 101!


The end result I think is being requested here is to easily preserve the information, so another option may be transferring the information to a different link. Perhaps highlighting one link, ⌘+c (or ctrl+c) to copy it, then select a different link and ⌘+v to paste, essentially pasting the information from one link to another.

I'm not even going to try to think about having multiple connections between the same thoughts, otherwise my brain tries to give my body advanced notice that it's about to crawl out of my ear and go to Bermuda for a bit until I stop. [smile]
U
pdate: Yup, still happening.
macOS 10.14.6
TheBrain 11.0.119
Quote
pthompson
This is all something we have and will continue to look into once the core of the application is functional and stable. It has been documented to make links more robust, etc.
Quote
perry
zenrain wrote:

I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think it's non-trivial to implement in a way that is readily understandable and useable by non-power users. Of course, I could be completely mistaken and the answer is staring me in the face.
Update: Of course, now I've typed this post, I realized that Advisor included the resolution in his already. If you hold down a modifier while selecting a gate, you could be modifying the link instead of the thought connection. For example, you hold down alt and click the child gate of a thought. You are now dragging the link between the parent and child thought from the parent end. You can now either drag it to an on screen thought and link it, or type the name of the thought to replace the parent connector. If there's already a link between the two you can choose to replace it or undo.
So yay me for reaching reading comprehension 101!



That works nicely, although if you wanted to move the parent links as well as the child links then it'd be simpler to use the thought rather than the links.

But I don't think it's an either / or, but an and / both as there are times you'd want to move either the parent or child and other times you may want to move both parent and child. Of course you could just do the action twice as well...
Quote

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

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software