How to review a mind map before using it

Check the map against the source text

A review starts with the map out of your head. Put the source material next to the map, whether that is an article, a transcript, a set of interview notes or a book, and work from both at once. A map reviewed from memory confirms whatever you already believed, which is the one thing a review cannot afford to do.

Work in passes rather than all at once. First pass: does the map cover the same ground as the source, at the same level of detail? Second pass: does the map claim anything the source does not support? Those are different failures, and the first shows up as a missing branch while the second shows up as a claim inside a note.

Canvasola makes the check searchable. Press Ctrl/Cmd+F and the search looks in node labels and rich notes, ranks what it finds, and lets you jump to the node. That lets you ask whether the source contained a term the map has, and whether the map has a term the source never mentioned.

• Put the source next to the map before you judge it
• Pass one covers coverage, pass two covers support
• Use Ctrl/Cmd+F to check a specific term both ways
• A claim inside a note still needs a source

Note: Search only works while a mind map is active, so open the map tab before you reach for the shortcut.

Ask whether each branch belongs

Take the first level and read the branch labels as a list. For each one, ask a simple question: if this branch were removed, would anything in the map be weaker? If the answer is no, the branch is decoration, and it is taking space that a real branch needs.

The harder question is whether two branches are the same idea wearing different names. "Pricing" and "Cost" side by side look like two parts of the subject, and a reader will treat them as two. Look also for a branch that is really a sub-branch of another, because that one belongs one level down.

The rules for an effective map put the same test differently, and the guide to reading someone else's map has the questions to ask a stranger. Do that test on the first level before you touch anything below it.

• Remove a branch, then ask if the map got weaker
• Two branches with the same meaning should be merged
• A branch that is really a category belongs one level down

Check the length of every label

Labels are the cheapest thing to check and the most common thing to be wrong. Read every label on the map and count its words. Two to four words is the target for a branch, and anything longer is usually a thought that has not been split into its parts.

A long label is not a formatting problem. It means the branch is carrying two ideas, or one idea plus an explanation, and both of those belong somewhere else. The fix is to split the label into siblings or to move the explanation into the note, and the split is usually obvious once you read the label slowly.

The label limit is 8,000 characters, so no editor will flag a rambling label for you. Your own eye is the check, which is why reading them in the outline panel with O works well: a nested list makes long labels obvious in a way a picture does not. The shortcut cheat sheet lists that key and the rest of the map keys.

• Two to four words per branch label
• Long labels hide two ideas in one string
• Read them in the outline panel where the length shows
• The 8,000 character limit protects the canvas, not you

Check that the notes carry the evidence

The notes are where a map keeps what the labels cannot hold, so review them next. Each rich note should contain the actual support for its branch: the quote, the number, the example, the source. A note that only repeats the label in longer words has added length without adding evidence.

Canvasola's notes hold formatted HTML with bold, italic, underline, bulleted and numbered lists, an add-link control and Dictate for speech to text, and a single note can hold 80,000 characters. That is a lot of room, and the temptation is to fill it with a summary that drifts away from the source.

The notes guide covers the formatting tools, and the honest test is simple: could somebody else verify the branch from the note alone, without asking you? If the answer is no, the note is a summary rather than evidence, and a summary is what the map was trying not to be.

• Every note holds support, not a longer label
• Quote, number, example or source, in that order of preference
• A note should be verifiable without asking the author

Look for the missing branch

The hardest review step is asking what should be there and is not. Work from the source again and list the topics it covers that the map does not. In most maps this list is short, and it usually contains one obvious gap, such as a risks branch in a project map or a questions branch in a study map.

Use the tools to hunt rather than guess. Press M for the minimap, a small overview in the corner, and look at the shape of the map: a large empty quadrant is a whole missing section, while a balanced shape with thin branches is a map that is simply shallow.

Then check whether the missing material was deliberately left out. Some branches belong in a second map, and the root note should say so. A map that states what it does not cover is a map you can trust, while one that quietly omits a topic reads as complete.

• List the source topics the map does not cover
• A large empty quadrant is a missing section
• Check the root note for deliberate omissions

Write the fixes down before you move on

The last step of a review is writing it down, because a review that lives in your head changes nothing. Make a list of the fixes, one line each, in the order you will do them: rename this label, merge these two branches, add the missing section, rewrite this note.

Put the list where it will be found again. The note of the branch that needs work is the most reliable place, because it travels with the map and the next person sees it when they open the branch. A separate list in another app is one more thing to lose.

Then fix the map, one pass at a time, and read it again afterwards. Undo and redo are shared across the canvas, the mind map and the App Builder, and the history keeps 20 versions, so a fix that turns out to be wrong is one keystroke away from being undone.

• One line per fix, in the order you will do them
• Store the list in the note of the branch that needs it
• Fix, then read the map again to confirm

A checklist you can reuse

• The source material was open next to the map during the review
• Coverage was checked separately from support
• Every first-level branch was tested by removing it mentally
• No two branches carry the same meaning
• Every label was read and is two to four words long
• Each note holds evidence that can be verified without the author
• The fixes were written down in the map and applied in one pass

Common mistakes to avoid

• Reviewing from memory. A map checked against your recollection confirms whatever you already believed. Open the source and work from both at once.
• Checking only the structure. A map can be perfectly shaped and still say something the source does not support. Review the claims, not only the branches.
• Leaving a short label alone. Two or three words is no guarantee of one idea. A short label can still be a category that belongs one level down.
• Treating notes as summaries. A note that restates the branch in longer words adds length, not evidence. Put the quote, the number or the source in it.
• Fixing everything at once. Ten changes in one pass mean you cannot tell which change caused a problem. Fix in order, and re-read the map between passes.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a mind map review take?

Ten minutes for a map with a dozen branches, longer for a big one, and the cost is mostly the first pass because you are reading the source as well as the map. The second pass, with the fixes written down, is quick, and doing it on a schedule beats doing it when the map is already in use.

Can I review a mind map without the original source?

You can check structure, label length and note quality without it, but you cannot check coverage or support, and those are the two checks that catch real errors. If the source is gone, say so in the root note, and review the map as a map rather than as a summary of something.

Who should review a mind map?

Somebody who did not build it, if there is one. A stranger finds the branch that does not belong and the note that does not explain itself, because neither is visible to you anymore. Give them ten minutes and three questions: what is this, what is in it, and what would you do next.

Should a review fix the map or just report on it?

Report first, then fix. The written list keeps the review honest and stops you from tidying the parts of the map you like while ignoring the parts you do not. Fix the list in order, and re-read the map when the list is done.

This guide is part of the mind map fundamentals collection. For the wider product tour, read the complete Canvasola guide, and keep the keyboard shortcut cheat sheet open while you work.