In my view it depends on what you want to do with those contacts. If you use them in one-to-one communication re specific projects, then it makes sense to keep them in context with the rest of your info. If you are more likely to send mass prospect mailings, then you need a software that can output list from queries. I know that UltraRecall can do this, but I don't know about ConnectedText; I am still getting the hang of it.

JBfrom wrote:

One question. I've been thinking about UR
for a contact manager. Would CT do that better? I don't see anyone using it for that, and
UR seems like a natural choice. Then again, it might be nice to have everything,
including contacts, integrated in the final T1.

Eduardo Mauro wrote:

#Alexander Deliyannis
About a collaborative version: we are
thinking about it. Perhaps using a cloud service. But we don't have any time
frame.

Think well; there is gold in them hills.

I agree with Alexander that if you're looking for a contact manager that does not need to output mailing labels or otherwise export information to a CSV file for mass communication, CT makes a great contact manager. It's perfect for capturing notes related to people and connecting them with projects.

Steve Z.

You're probably right. CT would be faster, and more configurable... and easier, I think anyway.

Why are there so few videos of CT? I counted two. It's hard to know what you're getting into.

Note - you don't even really need markup for getting your thoughts and notes into CT. You can just type paragraphs into it in the same way you'd type them into any plain text editor.

Re contact management - I actually find CT ideal for this, because you can have contact records that range (arbitrarily) from "napkin" style (just dump some text on their topic) to more structured records with "fields" (properties). I haven't needed to export a list, but I'm pretty sure you could use the summary command to build a table of contacts (or only a specific category of contacts) and then export that table to html, open in a browser, and copy and paste to Excel, etc.

JBfrom wrote:

The markup is still way too intensive for the earlier
stages of fast text flow that Cyborganize demands. And the structural possibilities
are too defined and open-ended.

Keeping in mind that I just briefly trialed CT on Wine and got turned off by the semi-incompatibility with Linux and massive nag text, so I don't know much of the markup...

Compare the markup for CT with Org-Mode and Wordpress

I can get collapsible hierarchical headings in Org with Emacs editing keybinds
Then in Wordpress I've got WYSIWYG links, basic formatting, quotes, links, etc.

That's pretty much enough.

I don't even use Org markup beyond headings because it ruins fast visual scanning. And going to markup for pretty versions of fast drafts I currently do in Wordpress seems a big step down.

JBfrom wrote:

And going to markup for pretty versions of fast drafts I
currently do in Wordpress seems a big step down.

From my limited experience with ConnectedText, I will agree with Chris that you can mostly ignore it. And with smart shortcuts like Ctrl+Alt+N (describe earlier in this thread) you should be able to do much of the more advanced stuff with little consideration.

That said, I've been trying out Markdown recently and I believe that its emphasis on readability is brilliant. I wish that it could be a standard option for wikis, even if some advanced (e.g. semantic) features of tools like ConnectedText would not be supported through it.

Ignoring markup would make it significantly more awesome.

I'm trialing it now to see what kind of shortcuts are provided.

First impression - it has a WYSIWYG editor bar. lol. So I was talking nonsense.

That should be a bigger selling point. Lots of wikis don't have that, and it is... pardon the incoming caps... i feel very strongly...

UNBELIEVABLY #$)@$@ ANNOYING

/end rant

Eduardo Mauro wrote:

Dr Andus wrote:
>I have only just begun exploring CT, so I apologise if this question
is too basic. But if
>you use CT as a writing tool (e.g. to write a book), and then you
export it as a bunch of
>.txt files, does it mean you have to then manually go and remove
every single mark-up
>from the text? That would seem to me like an awful big hassle...
Is there any way of
>avoiding that?

Some users export the content of a project to
HTML files and then import them in Word (or any other writing tool which accepts HTML).
You can even export to a single HTML file. Nonetheless, some editing will be required
but no markup commands will be present.

Actually this issue turned out to be a lesser problem than I expected. Copy and paste from CT's view window (as opposed to the edit window) straight into Word works reasonably well. Although the formatting, headings and bullet points are lost, I can live with that. Though I imagine if one had hundreds of topics, then a straightforward export into RTF (a la Scrivener) would be much preferable.

Here is a great CT case study from Manfred, complete with screenshots:
http://connectedtext.com/forum/index.php?topic=2389.msg10041#msg10041

Dr Andus wrote:
Here is a great CT case study from Manfred, complete with screenshots:
http://connectedtext.com/forum/index.php?topic=2389.msg10041#msg10041

What I find particularly interesting is the small number of files that he's using (14 over 7 years, and usually working with 4 main files), and that how a single file has almost 9000 topics. With Scrivener I have already got to a point that I needed to create new files for the same project because I couldn't see the forest from the trees.

Dr Andus wrote:

With Scrivener I have already got to a point that I needed to create new files
for the same project because I couldn?t see the forest from the trees.

This is a limitation of the hierarchical tree approach that many of us have run into.

Also, Connected Text can indeed handle thousands of items, and link them together without limitations, but I wouldn't say that it provides a way to actually display / visualise those links outside the near vicinity of each item.

I don't think there are many real solutions to show "both the forest and the trees" aside for zoomable interfaces like Treesheets.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

I don't
think there are many real solutions to show "both the forest and the trees" aside for
zoomable interfaces like Treesheets.

Speaking of Treesheets, I tried it back in November 2010, while needing to accomplish an urgent task for which it seemed appropriate. However, I got frustrated when I couldn't find an answer to something basic in the help file, like whether it was possible to merge cells horizontally or vertically, I can't remember. Is there anyone here who's been using Treesheets on a consistent basis? What's the verdict? I see there have been some updates since then...

Dr Andus, thanks for the reference to Manfred's description of how he's used CT.

I have no doubt, based on the reports of people such as Manfred, that CT is a phenomenal product, and that I could make really good use of it. Unfortunately, I cannot get my brain around how to use it. While I think part of my problem has to do with how the instructions for use are presented, I have come to realize that a major stumbling block is my inability to figure out how to begin using it. And that is not something unique to me and CT, but to any wiki program I have tried, and some other programs as well.

Recently I again trialed the product (fortunately I hadn't already tried it on my current laptop).

Again, I'm unable to figure it out, although I have no doubt it could be a killer app for me.

I need someone to talk me through the initial stages of getting going with CT. If I had such a person, I'd gladly buy CT.

I suspect if there was a CT for Dummies book, that chunked everything down, and explained some of the implicit assumptions about working with wikis in general, and CT in particular, I'd be OK. But since Wiley hasn't published such a book in the Dummies series, I need to be able to work with a live person.

That's a lot to ask, I know.

But if anyone's interested in such a process it could make some good blog copy for ExuberantEclectic.com - as well as the other person's blog (if s/he had one). Or it could even become the basis for a joint proposal to Wiley for a CT for Dummies book.

Cheers,

Daly

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Dr Andus, thanks for the reference to Manfred's description of how he's used CT.
I
have no doubt, based on the reports of people such as Manfred, that CT is a phenomenal
product, and that I could make really good use of it. Unfortunately, I cannot get my
brain around how to use it. While I think part of my problem has to do with how the
instructions for use are presented, I have come to realize that a major stumbling
block is my inability to figure out how to begin using it. And that is not something
unique to me and CT, but to any wiki program I have tried, and some other programs as
well.

Daly,
I can completely empathise with you because I had the same problem. Over the past 6 years I'd downloaded it several times and then gave up in frustration because I didn't even know where to begin and I similarly couldn't understand the instructions. Eventually it was Steve's blog post earlier in this thread that led to the breakthrough for me.

Now that I understand a little bit about it, I think the source of this problem is also CT's main strength. Basically it is such a versatile and flexible piece of software that it allows you - but also requires you - to invent your very own version of it. So it's a catch 22: in order to understand the software, you need to invent a use for it, but you can't invent a use for it, unless you know how it works at least a little. It's almost a zen-like problem and requires some form of sudden enlightenment when both things happen at the same time (at least for a non-programmer type like me :). For me the zen situation was provided by the fact that I had some specific data-analysis and writing-related problems for which wikis seemed perfect, and then came Steve's post, and I just suddenly realised how I might just be able to figure out how to use it.

Then came the next phase, which meant actually starting the work in CT, without spending too much time reading the Help file. And I'm progressing step-by-step, looking up the Help file or the CT forum or actually asking for help as and when I need it. And so learning about CT has been incremental and totally in parallel with inventing my own version of it (i.e. my own desktop layout, arrangement of tools, creating logical relationships between documents (topics) and categories etc.). So I recommend 1) finding a problem you need to solve (a writing or organisational problem), 2) get stuck into CT, and 3) learn about the features as you go along and ask for help when needed.

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Dr Andus, thanks for the reference to Manfred's description of how he's used CT.
I need someone to talk me through the initial stages of
getting going with CT. If I had such a person, I'd gladly buy CT.

I suspect if there was
a CT for Dummies book, that chunked everything down, and explained some of the
implicit assumptions about working with wikis in general, and CT in particular, I'd
be OK. But since Wiley hasn't published such a book in the Dummies series, I need to be
able to work with a live person.

But you are right. There don't seem to be enough beginner's case studies around to facilitate this entry stage.

Dr Andus wrote:

Then came the next phase, which meant actually starting the work in CT, without
spending too much time reading the Help file. And I'm progressing step-by-step,
looking up the Help file or the CT forum or actually asking for help as and when I need it.
And so learning about CT has been incremental and totally in parallel with inventing
my own version of it (i.e. my own desktop layout, arrangement of tools, creating
logical relationships between documents (topics) and categories etc.). So I
recommend 1) finding a problem you need to solve (a writing or organisational
problem), 2) get stuck into CT, and 3) learn about the features as you go along and ask
for help when needed.

Daly, I agree with Dr Andus's approach for learning or growing into CT -- especially number 1. If you have an idea of where you want to get to, that does probably make it easier.

But there is also the approach of just starting out thinking of CT as a collection of note cards. Create notes as needed and don't worry about the wiki part at first. You can open and dock the Topics list, which gives you a flat index of all your topics. Now you've got what is a pretty conventional note manager with editor and index of topics. Also, the search functions are pretty robust, so I don't think you'll be in any danger of not being able to get to your information. You can then just slowly teach yourself some of the features of CT, making your database more sophisticated as you go along. You can also use the Auto Link feature, which sniffs out phrases that match Topic titles and creates links for you.

Steve Z.

Most recently I've started using CT as a qualitative data analysis solution, to code textual data, for which I used NVivo in the past. This is what I do:

1. I take a 20,000 word document (a transcript of an interview) and paste it into CT as a new 'topic' (document).
2. I dock the table of contents window on the left, and have the edit view of the document on the right of it.
3. I start reading through the document and "code" it by adding in headings (up to 5 levels).
4. As headings are added, they start showing up in the TOC pane in the left, so I can see the hierarchy of the themes (codes).
5. When a large enough thematic group emerges (under a top-level heading), I use the "cut to new topic" command to remove that chunk of text from the current topic, so it becomes a topic of its own. This way the text I'm working on is gradually reducing in size, and eventually becomes the central (home) page from which the coded topics become linked.
6. I open the Navigator pane to see the relationship between the 'home page' and the associated coded pages (between 5-10 documents).
7. Then I open the Topics and Categories panes and dock them to the right-hand side of the CT window. Then I proceed adding the newly created topics (documents or pages) to the relevant categories.
8. I then review each newly created coded topic and write a conclusion section, which contains the conclusions drawn from the given material, basically the findings of the research.
9. Once I've done that for each new topic, I return to the 'home page' of this group of topics (which was the topic I started out with but which now only contains the links to these coded topics) and I use the "including parts of topics" command to incorporate all the conclusion sections from the coded topics. Essentially I'm extracting (or abstracting) the findings of the various sections.
10. Once my topic home page contains the extracted findings, I then consolidate these findings into a final set of findings (another level of abstraction).
11. As a final step, I use the "including parts of topics" command to extract this final set of findings and include them in my "Findings" topic, which should be the top level findings page for the entire research project.

So basically what I have done here is I have carried out a qualitative analysis of textual research data, by "coding the data" (thematising it), and then carry out several operations of abstraction, by drawing out and consolidating the research findings. I like to think about it as a "bubbling up" process, as I'm going from the particular text (the interview transcript) and I gradually move to a more abstract (higher) level, by dragging out the findings, reaching eventually the top level of abstraction, which will constitute the theoretical contribution of my study.

Dr Andus wrote:

So basically
what I have done here is I have carried out a qualitative analysis of textual research
data, by "coding the data" (thematising it), and then carry out several operations of
abstraction, by drawing out and consolidating the research findings. I like to think
about it as a "bubbling up" process, as I'm going from the particular text (the
interview transcript) and I gradually move to a more abstract (higher) level, by
dragging out the findings, reaching eventually the top level of abstraction, which
will constitute the theoretical contribution of my study.

Now the nice thing about this is that my theoretical findings are linked directly (via hyperlinks) to the actual empirical material from which they have been deduced, thus allowing me to go back and check my findings or to select material to cite as evidence, once I'm in the final stage of writing up my research.

The main difference between doing this kind of coding in CT as opposed to NVivo is that it is just much faster, as NVivo is a rather sluggish beast. Also, NVivo tends to encourage you to attach multiple relevant codes (tags) to a highlighted section of text. The individual codes do get aggregated elsewhere, but basically NVivo disrupts and chops up the analysis process, as the relationships between the codes are not immediately visible. With CT however it's possible to see in the table of contents window all the relevant codes (the headings), as well as the hierarchical relationships between them. So in CT it's just easier to relate the codes to the text and take them in visually and cognitively.

Dr Andus wrote:

So basically
what I have done here is I have carried out a qualitative analysis of textual research
data, by "coding the data" (thematising it), and then carry out several operations of
abstraction, by drawing out and consolidating the research findings. I like to think
about it as a "bubbling up" process, as I'm going from the particular text (the
interview transcript) and I gradually move to a more abstract (higher) level, by
dragging out the findings, reaching eventually the top level of abstraction, which
will constitute the theoretical contribution of my study.

The "bubbling up" metaphor though might not be the best to describe what's happening. It is more of a manual process of pulling, extracting, dragging out findings from the text, and it all happens in a flat wiki world. Nevertheless some kind of a structure or hierarchy emerges out of this space, where the central node (the Findings page) eventually becomes the top level of the hierarchy.

This is a terrific post and provides me with several excellent ideas on a project I'm working on now. I'm working with an RTF file of an annual financial report (10-K) and the ideas in the good Dr.'s post help enormously.

Miles

Dr Andus and Steve, thank you for your posts. I apologize for not being more timely in replying.

OK - based on what you both have written, and Manfred's piece on how he uses ConnectedText, I have just purchased the program.

I am somewhat scared - because I have never been able to figure it out before, but am convinced if I can stick with it, it may be the one-app solution for my note-taking, writing, research, personal data etc.

If you gentlemen can bear with me as I learn how to use CT, both Steve and I may end up with some good material for posts on our respective blogs.

Thanking you in advance,

Daly

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Dr Andus wrote:
>Then came the next phase, which meant actually starting the work
in CT, without
>spending too much time reading the Help file. And I'm progressing
step-by-step,
>looking up the Help file or the CT forum or actually asking for help as
and when I need it.
>And so learning about CT has been incremental and totally in
parallel with inventing
>my own version of it (i.e. my own desktop layout,
arrangement of tools, creating
>logical relationships between documents
(topics) and categories etc.). So I
>recommend 1) finding a problem you need to solve
(a writing or organisational
>problem), 2) get stuck into CT, and 3) learn about the
features as you go along and ask
>for help when needed.

Daly, I agree with Dr Andus's
approach for learning or growing into CT -- especially number 1. If you have an idea of
where you want to get to, that does probably make it easier.

But there is also the
approach of just starting out thinking of CT as a collection of note cards. Create
notes as needed and don't worry about the wiki part at first. You can open and dock the
Topics list, which gives you a flat index of all your topics. Now you've got what is a
pretty conventional note manager with editor and index of topics. Also, the search
functions are pretty robust, so I don't think you'll be in any danger of not being able
to get to your information. You can then just slowly teach yourself some of the
features of CT, making your database more sophisticated as you go along. You can also
use the Auto Link feature, which sniffs out phrases that match Topic titles and
creates links for you.

Steve Z.

Dr Andus wrote:

Most recently I've started using CT as a qualitative data analysis solution, to code
textual data, for which I used NVivo in the past. This is what I do:

1. I take a 20,000
word document (a transcript of an interview) and paste it into CT as a new 'topic'
(document).
2. I dock the table of contents window on the left, and have the edit view
of the document on the right of it.
3. I start reading through the document and "code"
it by adding in headings (up to 5 levels).
4. As headings are added, they start showing
up in the TOC pane in the left, so I can see the hierarchy of the themes (codes).
5. When a
large enough thematic group emerges (under a top-level heading), I use the "cut to new
topic" command to remove that chunk of text from the current topic, so it becomes a
topic of its own. This way the text I'm working on is gradually reducing in size, and
eventually becomes the central (home) page from which the coded topics become
linked.
6. I open the Navigator pane to see the relationship between the 'home page'
and the associated coded pages (between 5-10 documents).
7. Then I open the Topics
and Categories panes and dock them to the right-hand side of the CT window. Then I
proceed adding the newly created topics (documents or pages) to the relevant
categories.
8. I then review each newly created coded topic and write a conclusion
section, which contains the conclusions drawn from the given material, basically
the findings of the research.
9. Once I've done that for each new topic, I return to the
'home page' of this group of topics (which was the topic I started out with but which now
only contains the links to these coded topics) and I use the "including parts of
topics" command to incorporate all the conclusion sections from the coded topics.
Essentially I'm extracting (or abstracting) the findings of the various
sections.
10. Once my topic home page contains the extracted findings, I then
consolidate these findings into a final set of findings (another level of
abstraction).
11. As a final step, I use the "including parts of topics" command to
extract this final set of findings and include them in my "Findings" topic, which
should be the top level findings page for the entire research project.

So basically
what I have done here is I have carried out a qualitative analysis of textual research
data, by "coding the data" (thematising it), and then carry out several operations of
abstraction, by drawing out and consolidating the research findings. I like to think
about it as a "bubbling up" process, as I'm going from the particular text (the
interview transcript) and I gradually move to a more abstract (higher) level, by
dragging out the findings, reaching eventually the top level of abstraction, which
will constitute the theoretical contribution of my study.

I will eventually get started with the promised CT tutorials, but in the meantime, before I forget, there is another (perhaps less daunting) way of doing qualitative analysis in CT, which might be quicker than the above process.

1. Have Outline pane docked on the left (or right, if you prefer), and the View pane on the right (or left), roughly half-and-half.
2. Use the View pane to review the documents (topics) you want to analyse.
3. Use the Outline pane to start recording your codes and analysis in an outline hierarchy. If necessary, use the Outliner's "Link to Topic" feature to create a link between the "code" (outline item) and the topic.
4. Organise the resulting codes into a meaningful hierarchy.

This is a manual way of doing something that NVivo can do more or less automatically. The advantage of doing it in CT is that it allows you more control with organising the outline (which will become the depository of your codes). E.g. you can export it as OPML and import it into a more feature-rich outliner such as Natara Bonsai, where you can analyse and organise it further and then even re-import it back into CT. The CT outline can obviously be used as an outline for writing, and you can e.g. drag it onto a blank CT page (topic) where the outline items immediately become a hierarchy of headings.

I believe Eduardo is considering some further improvements to the Outliner in CT v. 6, which would make the navigation of very large outlines even easier and might even make the extraction of headings as "codes" possible. I haven't seen the beta yet but I'm hoping these changes will be implemented.

Finally on the CT forum I heard of some plans to implement a new mark-up which would allow for the coding of passages and extracting these passages, which would present all new opportunities for qualitative data analysis.

Dr Andus wrote:

Finally on the CT forum I heard of some plans to implement a new
mark-up which would allow for the coding of passages and extracting these passages,
which would present all new opportunities for qualitative data analysis.

I know that this is not the right place for CT feature requests (I will eventually subscribe to the CT forum) but my hopes are that eventually CT will also support MarkDown...

[Moved from another thread]

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Dr Andus wrote:
>Yes, this is a common complaint
>about working with wikis and CT in
particular. However, I think some of this is down to
>perceptions. A string of
command like that looks like intimidating gibberish (which
>disappears in view
mode though). But actually once you get used to the look of it, it
>might be quicker or
at least the same as doing this in Word

Quite true.

In practice, I spend most
time in "edit" mode, so complex markup gets in the way. But I could probably get used to
it indeed.

Here is one thing that helps me with ignoring mark-up in the text in CT edit mode. It's a bit counter-intuitive but if you assign different colours to specific mark-ups, somehow the eye recognises that they are mark-ups and jumps over them, so it becomes easier to read and write in edit mode. Go to Tools > Editor > Colours and select different colours for the various elements. E.g. Headings for me are light blue, links are URL-type blue, Commands are green, Comments are orange, and Includes are red.