Feedback if we have duplicate topic names in the mind map

Mike shared this idea 2 years ago
Voting Open

Duplicates could be given a special color or symbol, which could be made recognizable by the show/hide feature. Or, even if it's not that straightforward, a filter would somehow automatically capture them all.

In some situations it would be helpful to be able to recognize live if you typed in an identical topic name. A setting in the preferences could do this. E.g. the name would turn red as we type, if it already existed and it would turn black again as soon as we changed a single letter.

Feedback around duplicates could also be interesting when pasting or importing external elements.

Replies (2)


I think I underrstand why one would use this. However I will not vote for it since I don't want to clutter my maps with layout stuff that I don't need and I often use subtopics with the same name for things I do for clients etc.


I propose optional settings, i.e. without any effect on those who do not want to use them.

In addition, a quiet design would not cause any particular visual burden. And there could even exist an option of excluding intentionally produced or needed duplicates from the warning. Just as you put foreign words in a dictionary, you might accept duplicate topics as allowed.

When I address the need to make duplicates visible, then of course I am not referring to particularly clean, well-kept maps. Something like that hardly happens there, or it quickly becomes apparent even without help.

I am mainly thinking of complex maps and the ones that we edit even though some branches are collapsed. Dynamic places where a lot and not always precise things happen.

I am also thinking of the many ways in which elements are introduced, whether by copy and paste, drag and drop, sending search results to topics, or importing documents etc. In all of these activities, duplicates can unintentionally get into the map.

In my case there are also swarms of codes from qualitative data analysis software or category structures from research projects. Precise conceptual work can sometimes require very clean handling of controlled vocabulary etc. The more elements and the higher the requirements, the more grateful I am for the automatic detection of potential conflicts.

What I promise myself from the targeted, controlled handling of duplicates:

  1. Content collisions or unnecessary redundancy can be reduced/excluded.
  2. Less conflicts in semantic constructs.
  3. The relevance and reliability of search results increases.
  4. It supports clearer, more understandable communication with others.
  5. And last but not least, it promotes and cultivates an even more precise approach to one's own concepts.

In other words, we both share an aversion to cluttered maps ;-)