Forum Posts Feed
Question about ConnectedText, Ultra Recall and others
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Jon Polish
Sep 20, 2012 at 06:06 PM
I’ve read quite a lot of positive things about ConnectedText on this forum. I have a license for version 3 and am considering upgrading. I never really used version 3 because I really didn’t get it. Ultra Recall, InfoQube, WhizFolders InfoSelect (v9) and Zoot all click with me. With the exception of Zoot, all these can store their data in just one file. I like that.
Part of the problem is the learning curve. Another is that the information just seems to get lost (for me). Finally, I just don’t get how one brings the information from CT into a final document as you can with all the others.
Can someone offer some guidance?
Thanks.
Jon
Posted by Jon Polish
Sep 20, 2012 at 07:24 PM
I suppose that at the core of my question is whether Ultra Recall or InfoQube (the tools I rely on most often) duplicate most of the capabilities of CT. That would make CT redundant for me.
Posted by Dr Andus
Sep 20, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Jon Polish wrote:
>I suppose that at the core of my question is whether Ultra Recall or InfoQube (the tools I rely on most often) duplicate most of the capabilities of CT. That would make CT redundant for me.
Yes, that’s an interesting question. It would need someone who is very familiar with all three. My feeling is (I did play around with UR a bit and checked out IQ but I don;t know well either of them) that while at a basic level they might take care of very similar tasks as CT (such as managing large sets of data), probably each of them have some quirky little features that make them unique. I’ve been now using CT for about 7 months on a daily basis and I constantly come across surprising new features and uses.
>Part of the problem is the learning curve.
I’ve started writing a blog post to address this issue but here is a preview. Yes, there is a learning curve with CT and it is not for everybody (just as I never really understood UR for instance). CT is rather idiosyncratic in the way it works and what it can do and so it’s not intuitive for a first time user, unless you are already a pro wiki editor or programmer. However, here is the good news: you don’t need to become an expert to use it. I still consider myself a beginner, yet I can use it perfectly well for what I need it for.
There is no way of avoiding having to read the help file (the Welcome topic). While you don’t have to read it all, there are a few important topics that need to be read. Also, becoming a CT user is about becoming a member of the CT community, i.e. the forum, where not only other users can help you but also where a lot of advice and scripts etc. are stored. It’s an extension of the help file. I consult it almost daily.
Another is that
>the information just seems to get lost (for me).
I’m not sure what you mean by that. As far as the topic contents are concerned, it’s almost impossible to lose anything (I’m told by venerable users with massive databases).
Finally, I just don’t get how one
>brings the information from CT into a final document as you can with all the
>others.
This gets me back to the community thing. I haven’t had to actually do that yet but I have seen that process discussed on the CT forum, or perhaps even on this forum, and also Manfred wrote about it on his blog. So a lot of info is already out there.
Here is a tip for anyone who wants to learn about what has been said about a specific topic on this forum: 1) log in, 2) download the Forum text file, 3) use an editor such as NoteTab to do incremental searches e.g. for “ConnectedText,” “CT,” “Connected Text” to see what’s been said. NoteTab has some very useful search functions such as “Count Occurrences” or “Search Reverse”, which will allow you to search the forum chronologically.
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Sep 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM
To answer your question, it would help to know what your primary purpose is. If you’re storing clippings and documents from other sources, my feeling is that you’re better off with Zoot or UltraRecall. That’s not to say you can’t use CT for this purpose, it’s just that I don’t think it is better than they are and if you’re already familiar with them then why jump through hoops (unless you’re struck by the CRIMP bug, of course)?
However, I think CT beats UltraRecall and even Zoot for synthesizing and analyzing. So, for example, if you’re trying to write a complex document with lots of pieces, I think CT is a better choice (although Whizfolders is also probably a good option). CT is good at keeping related information together.
CT makes a nice notebook—and, as I mentioned recently in another post, you don’t really need to know a lot of esoteric commands and codes and such for it to function nicely in this capacity. Just remember to use double brackets [[like this]] to create a wiki link to an existing or (once you click on it) a new topic. And bracket headings with equal signs to create a hierarchy in your current topic. CT does most of the rest for you.
Steve
Posted by Jon Polish
Sep 21, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Thank you Dr. Andus and Stephen. Your comments shifted my thinking about CT.
Stephen, I accept your point about collecting information. For this reason and because I can have everything in one portable file that is easily exported in a number of useful ways, I think I shall use UR. Reorganizing items or pages seems easier (for me) in UR, IQ and others. It would be nice to be able to use the navigator tool in CT for restructuring, but as CT is wiki based, I suppose that is not possible.
Dr. Andus, I think I will try CT parallel to UR for a while. The program is intriguing and may prove worthwhile for me. I need to learn about getting the information I need in the correct order, out of CT.
As I said, I “get” UR, Whizfolders, IQ, Info Select, Mindmanager, Axon, Brainstorm and The Brain. The features in CT that are most reassuring to me are the navigator and the outliners. While these are primary features of the aforementioned programs, they are second tier in CT. Perhaps that is my problem.
Jon