Pandora's dashboard

Thanks very much.

I still believe it was partial carelessness on my part, as I should have caught that before publishing or via a stronger understanding of the collection process.

Not sure. Will work with it a bit more for ideas, but off the top of my head, perhaps an index link in the 'selected' content section that would allow a quick review of each instance where a snippet is used throughout the thought map? Select/de-select for that snippet by category?

Not perfect, but it would encourage an easy method for review.

Will think more on this while testing.

I am having way, way too much fun Thought Networking.

Addictive.

Neil Peart - Much More Than Just a Drummer

The more Thought Networking you do, the more intuitive it becomes. Likewise, the easier it becomes to put an idea together.

I think I figured out part of my own answer:
* The grouping categories are based on my saved, collected thoughts.
* The order of the categories is alphabetical.

Got it.

Prisoner of My Own Thought

Excellent answer. Thank you very much.

Layout (thanks for the nudge, Tim):

- in the thought cloud section, users will not know to hover or isolate in order to pick a corresponding thought. The select box would be quite ugly from an aesthetic view, but would be more user friendly.
- ties in to above - if users can't see 'selected' thoughts immediately, then they won't grasp 'select all' or 'select none' visually. Selected thoughts could be automatically displayed in upper left quadrant in different font colour? (maybe it already does this?)
- not layout, but I have to point out that the greater proportion of users will have no experience with brain-storming, thus 'thought cloud' will be meaningless to them. They're going to get confused and expect puffy, fluffy cumulus bubbles to wrap around their thoughts. Either need to change the wording or hyperlink it to offer a definition/description and promote Thought Network linguistics.
- Can't fully view the Left nav bar so no input there.
- Likewise, can't really see functions on both right-hand nav bar & function tabs, so no comment there. (tried to zoom)

Would you be able to post close-up shots of the left & right nav bars and the bottom tab menu for review?

Overall, the layout is much better than in the Alpha test. Much improved.

Great point on considering layout first. Moving to the other thread.

Gracias.

Poor CEO. I have a hunch he might have a certain 'compelling cover letter' pointed out to him today, too. Not sure, but that is where my train of thought is heading this morning.

Thoughts? Cross posting to the other thread...

Let me know when to start QA.

I am Twittering about:
"Annoying Primal Fusion developers, but they need a tire-kicker, hornet's nest poker and a thought provocateur."

I'm your Huckelberry.

Sorry, neglected to look closely at the screen shot.

That looks much more intuitive. Better navigation, clear delineation of tasks and more directed focus on the functions.

Ready for October 1st? ;)

I should add that I don't believe that editorial context is necessarily required in regards to the content, which is what you are trying to avoid.

I do believe that there should be some room to express how a thought train evolved from A-Q, as this will not always be intuitive.

You're asking consumers to take it on faith that my thought train semantics will result in valuable content for them, without ensuring that there is a validation check in place. By allowing for a bit more detail as to how the content is extracted you encourage the consumer to have more faith in the result set.

While you don't want the solution to be consumer driven, if you disregard the fundamental human desire to have the ability to 'add their two cents worth in,' then the basic premise will falter. The beauty, aberrations and complexities of the modern, current www's success and growth all hinge upon the basic (consumer's) idea that the masses have something worthy to say, they will post it and they want to share it to an audience. (Eager or not.)

The key here is in recognizing that tenet and in directing it like a laser beam. Enable the ability to editorialize the on the thought train (directed steps in logic or leaps in logic) vs. exposing obvious content?

Not sure. This requires more thought.

But, I am pondering this Primal Fusion principle even without further consideration:

"The major difference here is that the semantics and structure are discovered through the expectations that consumers have for the content, rather than being imposed by knowledge engineers in advance.

Note also that consumer-first is not Web 2.0. While Web 2.0 collaborative processes are obviously consumer driven, they are often framed within the task of annotating content as opposed to annotating the mental models of the consumers themselves. Further, the complexity of semantics and knowledge representation demands a Web 3.0 industrial approach to simplify things for consumers."

Here's the issue: If you market only to consumers that wish to be lead by the hand to the content, then you're defying the basic value of 'Thought Networking' to begin with.

Exposing the content in this manner is valuable. Mapping and showcasing the steps in the thought process is invaluable and will differentiate between the consumers and the creators who feed the consumers.

You need cater to both audiences to excel.

Failing to use the thought train process as a teaching method to tutor users in critical thinking is lacking in substance. It's just another search engine propelled by funky, advanced search criterion.

At its base level, Primal Fusion is about cognitive, critical thinking - and the sharing of those skills to surface specific content.

To provide concrete results, you must allow for critical thinkers to share how they think/thunk/thought to produce the results for the consumers - else, it is lacking in structure.

I want the consumer to read what I post and find significant. Yet, I can't show or teach how I leap from data point to point to get there. I need to have some method to demonstrate WHY this content is of significant relevance, beyond a standard web search.

Personal semantics are the key, but there must be some capability to allow for the consumer to validate the logic that leads to the content.