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

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.

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.

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

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

Jon Polish wrote:

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.

I would be interested in your comparison between CT and UR, as I ended up using CT for the kind of thing that I thought I'd be using UR. For me one of the main benefits of CT as a wiki is to be liberated from hierarchical organisation (ironic, I know, to say this on an outliner forum).

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.

I've also been initially attracted to CT by the Navigator. It's not really for restructuring things but for visualising your network of relationships and for ... navigating. I've only just got into using the Outliner more recently and I like it a lot. CT is pretty flexible, so what is primary or secondary really depends on the user.

I have CT and UR.

CT's features are impressive. Everything looks great on paper...
But I just can't seem to get into it.

Have tried many times.
The edit mode slows me down. I dread writing in it.

I ended up using ResophNotes regularly.
It has way less features, but it clicks with me.

If CT didn't click with you before, I doubt the latest version would.

tradercclee wrote:

If CT didn't click with you before, I doubt
the latest version would.

My experience was different. I have checked out CT repeatedly over the years and it didn't click with me at all. However, having read some user case studies (http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/3799/ Manfred's posts (http://takingnotenow.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/ConnectedText especially the one on the CT website (http://www.connectedtext.com/manfred.php and finally Steve's review (http://welcometosherwood.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/connectedtext-tinderbox-for-windows/ helped me visualise how CT can help me with a particular information management problem I had.

As for writing with mark-up, I use minimal code, such as the headings, occasional italics and bold, URLs, file links, and the "include" and category tags. And the highlight mark-up here and there. That's pretty much it. I have most mark-ups automatically displayed in dedicated colours, which helps the eye recognise where they are in the text and it is less disruptive (counter-intuitively) when you are writing and reading.

Sure, this is not as clean as writing in Word or Notepad, on the other hand the benefits of using CT far outweigh any possible inconvenience (which after 7 months of daily use I simply don't notice).

Here are the advantages to me of writing in CT's edit mode:
- ability to dock Table of Contents pane on the left, so I can see in real time the emerging outline of the text that I am writing (as any of the 5 levels of headers get automatically displayed);
- ability to dock Outliner on the left (can be hidden in a tab behind the TOC and called up by one click) and either use it as an outline to guide the writing or as an outline for the overall project that can be amended while you're writing a sub-section.
- ability to dock Topic list pane on the right, so I can quickly navigate and switch between other topics that might be related (CT automatically saves content of your current topic when you do that);
- ability to have Navigator open on another monitor, so I can see how the topic I'm currently working on might be related to other topics (visually, as a map).
- ability to have a Notes pane docked on the right, where I can jot quick notes down to the topic I'm working on.

The main thing here is that all this happens within the same window (except the Navigator, although you can dock it within the same window if you want as well), so there is no need to exit and use another app for those tasks. So there are some huge efficiencies here, which compensate for me any inconveniences of having to use mark-up.

Thank you Stephen, Dr. Andus and tradercclee. Your guidance has been both instructional and created some consternation for me. Stephen's emphasis on the ability to be productive while keeping it simple was encouraging. Dr. Andus' use and description of how he uses CT inspired me to delve into CT's finer points. In the end though, tradercclee's observations were closer to the mark. The feelings I had while attempting version 3 remain. It seems ashame because I see CT's value and craftsmanship. I suppose this is one reason why we have different tools at our disposal.

I think CT would benefit from UR's ability to index documents linked to it. You can then include these linked files as part of your database search.

Jon

Jon Polish wrote:

Dr. Andus' use and
description of how he uses CT inspired me to delve into CT's finer points. In the end
though, tradercclee's observations were closer to the mark. The feelings I had while
attempting version 3 remain. It seems ashame because I see CT's value and
craftsmanship. I suppose this is one reason why we have different tools at our
disposal.

Yes, usefulness of a tool is often at the hand of the user. Some things may click with us and others will not. E.g. I always had difficulties in budgeting with Excel; then I discovered B-liner, a sort of hierarchical spreadsheet and it was an eye-opener. I have now switched to MindView, which is a mind map program that includes numerical functions because it's more powerful and stable, but the paradigm is the same.