@TheHumanTim, I agree that adjectives can be in a class of their own for helping to create more detail in a mnemonic image. They are an essential part of a detailed image in what I call a visual sentence.
I’ve decided there are four major types of data for an image, and each one can have their own adjective/adverb. You can search for SEA-IT to get more detail. The E stands for elaboration or any adjective of a subject, item or terrain, or an adverb for an action.
Then you use a set of synced pegs anchored on its number order with a complex conversion rule like the PAO. While it’s possible to keep extending the number of synced peg lists from PO, to PAO, to PAOL, to aPAaPaOPA, the question is why don’t people do that? I crammed in lots of visual data into one image as a test and found that it took a lot of time.
Most people want a competition-style system which is fast to convert and recover the image. The PO and PAO fits that bill. So that’s what I see as a major shortcoming of overdesigning a synced list system. But it is a great way to convert long lists for permanent use.
I found that my adjectives needed to be reviewed often as they typically were the first to degrade. Psychology tells us that the image part that makes it the most sticky is the action. It’s not any bizarre type of elaboration or object we use in the image.
The key here is that you have a trade-off. A richer visual image with more compressed data vs. a lean image for faster conversion and recall. Long-term planning and multiple reviews vs. short-term recall and minimal review. Lean images work better if you have a good imagination.
Let me know how it progresses for you as you use your system. Do you use it for any practical purpose yet? You’ve got some good design skills so keep designing and putting your systems to the test!