I would like to have the posibility of starting more "rootparents" in the same map
When in planing mode of a structure, I often get the ideas in an unsorted way. To keep them, it would be great to have the possibility to put them on the map immediately including som child nodes and afterward just have to connect them to the main structure in an reasonably way.
you can now add multiple roots, disconnect nodes and float them, and manage multiple maps in the same file on mindmup 2.0.
If you use google drive, use https://drive.mindmup.com
if you use free storage or Gold storage, use https://app.mindmup.com
-
Bruno commented
I am so happy!
-
Bruno commented
For multiple parents nodes, besides TheBrain, there is not much offer. I think they overcharge for a solution that really need an update of their interface, Google cloud integration, better multi platform integration. It is easy to beat, let's go, continue. :)
-
Bill commented
I'm working on management structure - it would be great to be able to create different structures and compare them. The different visuals would help the thought process
-
Anonymous commented
There are enough comments here. I am currently using MindMup and need this functionality for the same reasons, the rest do. :)
-
Joe Daniel commented
I could really use a multiple parent node ability. I have been trying to organize my projects into a cohesive map to help maximize my efforts and see how they interlink. I have organized them into research, writing, and outreach thus far as my areas of focus. Each of them have large areas of overlap and interconnect, but they also have their own pieces as well. I was hoping that I could use these maps to show me projects worth concentrating on that would move the most areas forward in the most efficient way. I could draw them out using a whiteboard or paper, but I need the ability to move things around without having to redraw the entire map, which is why I was trying mind mapping software out.
-
Marius commented
The required top down approach is very limiting because it forces you to structure your thoughts right from the start in a hierarchical way.
My need is to be able to create nodes freely. Then, when I see the need to link two nodes, I would define the relationship between them: sibling, parent, unspecified.
-
Angiras commented
In discussing the evolutionary history of ideas or cultural memes, say we have meme1 and meme2; two separate, unrelated concepts. Over time, these two memes, which have distinct origins, may combine to form new memes, meme3, meme4, etc.
If we are forced to show root nodes as children of yet another root node, it will represent information very inaccurately. Even if we were to add a note to explain it, it does not look elegant at all.
-
Elizabeth Schier commented
I just wanted to add a vote for the ability to start with a few separate parents on the one map which you know will end up being related but the purpose of the map is to work the nature of the relationship. M. Porter's "pending" suggestion is a good way around it using the current structure but it would be nice to be able to avoid this and it does force a spatial organisation onto the ideas that might end up not fitting the structure of the ideas being mapped.
To be concrete I want to be able to start with say three main ideas which are not currently connected to each other and which the standard heirchacical trees can come off. When you are trying to work out the relation between the 3 main ideas working on different maps makes it harder to hold all the ideas in your head at once.
FYI I use it in tertiary education which is delivered online (and so a whiteboard is not an option). I work with students to build the map and to put the connection in between the central ideas from the beginning would be to give the "answer" away. The lack of this feature is the main reason why I stick to a whiteboard in mapping out my own research ideas
-
Jan Schulze commented
Just as one of the first commentators I also with colours a lot. To clarify the state of tasks. For some that is easier to grasp. Another parent node with a children as coloured examples would be awesome and save me a lot of explanations.
-
JSF commented
I fully support this request. I've been searching for a non-hierarchical mindmap. It must be more difficult to code, because 99% of the mindmap tools out there are hierarchical, and frankly, are just fancy-looking, hierarchical outlines. A real mindmap (i.e., that works like the human brain) would allow multiple connections between nodes and wouldn't force every node to branch from a single parent.
-
AHMAD ALANAZI commented
Honesty, I came here, and I was looking for a way to contact the AWESOME team behind this MindMup. Only to give them a feedback to add this exact feature (TWO parents, with ONE Child).
I was pretty amazed when I saw this form, and voting system. It shows that there is a super team behind this, and an amazing managements.
Im really looking for this feature.
UPDATE ME, and I can help out with design if you like. Check my work out.
Twitter: @AhmadDesigns -
Piran Montford commented
You asked for why we might want to have multiple root nodes. On a mindmup I created recently, we had two reasons (1) We were exploring a system, and there was another system unconnected that needed to be considered with it — we could have put that in the diagram with a node unconnected to any others. (2) To provide a Key to colours / symbols used in the mindmup; I did this Key in a separate mindmup and distributed together in a PDF — it would have better to do this as a new root node on the original mindmup.
-
sylvio commented
I would connect this idea with another one: "Import an other MindMup project in a node". Why? I use the maps to organize ideas about the articles that I need to read for my thesis, it will be very helpful to have the possibility to add a new node, an independent one, that I could link to other nodes. I connect this idea with the one of importing a project because it will have the same final effect.
-
Sytse commented
Is there any news on this, did it get out of review and into some form of development? I think it's the most important improvement to the application, by far. Ideas, associations and emergent structure (= a mind map) hardly ever follow one predictable hierarchical structure - at least mine don't (I'm in both arts, design and science).
That said, there is an interesting interaction between one's personal, momentary 'need' to just connect a to b without hierarchy, and a tool that asks you to impose some hierarchical formatting, like parent-child. At time, that actually helps getting your ideas clearer (from misty and multi-rooted to something resembling a taxonomy). I would try keep that while implementing more freedom to choose one hierarchy or another.
One way to do this, could be to offer different hierarchical structures as templates that can be imposed on a graph, or sections of it (and sure that can be helpful!). Switching between 'pedigree' and 'flat' modes, you can then slowly build and rebuild connections between concept nodes. (Of course, this would need some form of assigning and saving roles in one hierarchy mode while viewing it in another, but let's not discuss solutions immediately..)
-
Anonymous commented
Having multiple root parents would allow me to discover the connection between ideas as it emerges rather than having to know the starting point from the beginning. Sometimes I start with 2-3 root ideas and look for connections rather that starting with one root and dividing/sub-dividing outward.
-
Rick T commented
I'm new to both mind mapping and MindMup. I'm using MindMup to create a data map of some key business processes, and in parallel, map those same high level processes. MinMup works pretty well for the data map as long as the relationships are 1-1. 1-many relationships, though, are clumsy, and many-to-many relationships are one reasons why I'm writing this comment.
In a many-to-many data relationship, there are, by definition, multiple parents and children. I can do this in MindMup as long as create one primary hierarchial relationship and then manually draw a line between all the other nodes. But I haven't found a way to indicate parents or children.
The 2nd reason for commenting is in the process flows. In just one example, there are many ways to create a particular document (web, email, fax, phone call). Each path is a little different but they share common elements and all end up at the same place- a common child. In this scenario, I have a single child (a document) with multiple parents. Again, in MindMup I create one hierarchical relationship and manually connect the other nodes with no way to indicate the parents are all equal.
The 3rd reason for commenting is that I want to connect the two sides of my map. I want to show how the data connects to the processes. In fact, that's a key goal of the exercise. I want to find where each data item is used.
The only way I can see to do this is to individually link each data item to each process.
I think if I could create multiple parents I might be able to mode easily link them to meet the three distinct use cases above.
Additionally, I echo the comments of many other posters who request "orphan" nodes.
I hope this helps you visualize a solution.
-
kabookie commented
My background is in architectural design and space planning. Often we place multiple ideas or spaces on a page before linking any of them - we call it "bubble diagrams". Once the ideas are down, then the linking happens. A 'mind map' doesn't always start with one central idea, often brainstorming allows several ideas to be linked together AFTER they have been placed on a blank page or whiteboard. I love mind mapping and this app, but allowing multiple stand-alone parents with the option to link them later will expand the functionality of the product even more. (Jeez that last part sounds like corporate-speak - too many years behind the veil)
-
Andrew Fields commented
Anonymous/James Hanley got the point to me
-
Nils Wloka commented
I actually use MindMup for Impact Mapping. Having more than one root node would allow me to capture more than one goal at once without resorting to "fake" root nodes. For me, this would improve clarity.
-
Angela R commented
I think Michael Delpach makes a good point, but that's only useful if you know from the beginning that you have two separate ideas that definitely need two separate mind maps. If you start with one mind map and then branch off in lots of directions and, before you know it, find you've built a monster mind map, it's a real pain to have to re-save the mind map and then delete all of the unwanted nodes (or, even worse, to have to cut and paste all of the nodes from one mind map on to a new one).