View List of Previous Thoughts

It would be very beneficial. It would allow for the continuance of further trains of thought from the originating set. How often do you walk away for a cup of coffee, or a blessed nap and suddenly brainstorm in a new direction?

I might begin thinking about Heinlein in general, then favourite characters. Later, it might pop into mind that he used the theme of 'rubbing blue mud into your bellybutton like the natives,' in several books. I might want to share all those specific quote references as a sub-topic of Heinlein's best character, Lazarus Long.

Minimal requirements:
- save thought train as draft
- edit/add to train later, even after webpage published ( see other topic on this) Only very rarely will a researcher or writer complete a topic in one sitting. This should be a priority feature for development.
- regroup thoughts/articles before publishing to web page (drop down select as to which page to publish to would be a goal to strive for)
- ability to group specific pictures with thoughts/saved articles vs. as 'featured image' page only. If I am discussing a specific book, I would like the cover image with said book.
- add ability to apply meta tags to web pages
- add ability to write a proper Intro page - especially necessary for researchers/writers. 280 character summary is useful, but ultimately limiting, else, you are only sharing OTHER content, and very little of your own to describe/share the train of thought. Without the ability to add original thought to put the 'semantics' into some contextual frame of reference, then it is somewhat flat and could be all too easily and rightfully criticized as being simply a 'link fest gathering tool in a tiara.'

Essentially - the work flow is limited to the thoughts/articles of other web sources & resources, with little ability to add editorial input/context.

All of that said, I am eager and very intrigued to see where you take development next.

It's like waking up to the scent of fresh cinnamon rolls - an enticing morsel that makes you want to get out of bed and see what other adventures await on a day that is off to a great start already.

Promising & tasty.

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.