Comments on: Mind maps, deconstructed – valuable or not?

By: Tim Fulford

Tim Fulford — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:47:53 +0000

Hi Maurice I think that you are incorrect when you state:

‘As far as I can see, some of the functions described are uniquely achieved by MindManager. I uphold mappers’ entitlement to use whatever medium they wish and I appreciate the Buzan specification for pure mind maps especially when it comes to inspiration/innovation or subject taxonomies for understanding and memory/revision.’

1. The features are NOT unique to MindManager, hence my original comment.
2. Buzan Mapping can be used for much much more than you describe in your comment.
I USED to be a MindManager user until I learnt how to MindMap from the Master himself. I very quickly realised that Buzan’s methods and principle OPEN up more than can ever be achieved with software that does not allow you to have organic representation on which the brain thrives.
And before anyone comes back with the comment I have been brain washed …. errr…. no I have just learnt over 40+ years through testing and trial what works effectively and what doesn’t for me and for others.

By: Maureen Curran

Maureen Curran — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:46:53 +0000

Thanks for this excellent review. I use mind mapping tools for few limited things and probably haven’t fully embraced them just yet. So, this was very interesting to get into the nuts and bolts of using one and making it a “live” activity. One problem with several of the parts of this template is that the sheer volume of information that I capture, work with and archive for various uses is enormous and would be very difficult to handle in this format.

I also second Glen H’s comment regarding how other mapping tools could/would handle different aspects of the design. I don’t mean a specific “how-to” for other tools, but a general idea of how one might go about it. Thanks again for sharing this with us.

By: Glen Hoffherr

Glen Hoffherr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:52:57 +0000

Good article and easy to follow – an added value might be to compare how several different tools would accomplish the same result – for this high level version I prefer the brain as it lets me link multiple ways – i also then use both novamind an mindmanager for different MM elements ie mindmanager is better for simple project management while novamind is easier for capturing writing project development – By using different programs that provide different benefits i find that i am much more efficient – indeed one size does not fit all

By: Roberto Moraga

Roberto Moraga — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:16:19 +0000

Dear Chuck Frey,

My main concern is to keep myself focused, and your proposal target is exactly that. Thks a lot !

It seems to me that social network is important by these days, and could be included as a branch by itsef. (or as part of contacts…)
I also would include tasks as part of each project, beside resources needed to success (links, tools, money, equipment, materials, etc).

Congratulations and thks again !
Roberto

By: Maurice Poole

Maurice Poole — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:26:41 +0000

This is a very good exposition of the usefulness of the template. I downloaded the template some time ago but have not used it consistently, partly because I got frustrated about one feature and partly because I use my own mapped reminder list when necessary.

On pages 5-6 you say:
“Note the “weekly archives” topic at the top right. It contains sub-topics for each month of the year, and makes it possible to move old versions of this weekly planning tool out of view, but still keep them available – just a few mouse clicks away – if for some reason you need to review what you did during a specific week.”
You might comment on how you achieve this. By copying and pasting then deleting the detail in the current week in favour of the next, or by cutting and pasting details, losing reference dates unless they have been set up in advance? Either way seems cumbersome and leads to my doing my own thing, still with MindManager. Maybe I am missing something fundamental?

As far as I can see, some of the functions described are uniquely achieved by MindManager. I uphold mappers’ entitlement to use whatever medium they wish and I appreciate the Buzan specification for pure mind maps especially when it comes to inspiration/innovation or subject taxonomies for understanding and memory/revision. But I do not think all the features described can be accomplished other than with MindManager. Presumably that’s why some functions were constructed in the template, simply because it was build in that medium. Put another way, why did the mapper do that? – because (s)he could, of course!

By: Tim Fulford

Tim Fulford — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:31:13 +0000

This is an interesting report and makes easy reading, well done Chuck! I personally use a MindMap to organise everything that I do however I use Buzan MindMapping techniques (1 word per line/branch). This makes for a more open and usable MindMap. I also use iMindMap as it is the only software which really adheres to the 7 golden rules of MindMapping. In the example used in this report I think that you would find that the layout on the screen or paper would be so much better if iMindMap was used.
What is particularly interesting, simply because I work for a number of separate organisations which have one-line booking systems, is the weekly diary and the web links which means logging on and checking is a breeze.
Links to documents (text and spreadsheets), contact details and how to get to get to clients facilities.
Having your ideas and goals available at all times is a great way to ensure that you are striving to meet your goals and develop your ideas.
Excellent and the report has given me some further ideas to develop on my Master MindMap.