topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Tuesday June 10, 2025, 4:49 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dormouse [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79next
1
The outcome of my Horse ride was that I switched to Vivaldi as my research browser. I've used it on and off for a long time, and I've tweaked my settings to give me the best approximation of trails. The times I switch away are usually because I hit problems with one or two sites or that I get irritated by some aspect of its default behaviour (and tweaking its settings is always a deep dive).

But given my frequent focus on note-taking, why wasn't its notes feature a stronger draw before?
A question I needed to ponder.

I think there were a number of factors.
  • Vivaldi is a browser with notes; it makes no attempt to incorporate PKM features - which means it can be a starting place for notes but not the final home. And there are many ways of taking notes on websites.
  • The organisation it does have is with folders, which don't map on to my preferred system.
  • There's no automatic link between the website and note; a link can be put into the note, but that's true for any system.
  • Vivaldi notes aren't especially good for annotating a website; my interest is often in making a few comments rather than developing a complete note.
  • The one program advantage relies on a screen large enough to accommodate both site and note.
  • I hadn't thought of the trails idea for deep, iterative research..
  • The advantage of taking the notes in Vivaldi, doesn't really extend beyond that particular methodology; it's perfectly okay for other notes, but no better than many other methods.
  • And it's browser dependent, which means there would have been a different workflow depending on which browser I was using at the time.



2
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 09, 2025, 04:51 PM »
I appreciate that an AI oriented browser might be able to do the lot. But I'm extra hesitant to trust the whole process to a newly developed program with unknown (possible) pitfalls.

Yesterday, as is my wont on a Sunday, I watched a selection of antiquarian ambles https://one of which was interrupted by a rant about AI. It's getting everywhere.  :mad:

The story was that a place had been ascribed a name in the nineteenth century (which was essentially made up) but since disproved by academics but has recently been resuscitated on the internet courtesy of AI "reading" old books and being unable to tell true from false.

Highlighting my concerns about its use in family history where everything depends on double and triple checking and weighing probabilities. Concerns only increased by sites AI-driven suggestions - over the weekend, I was directed to a newspaper cutting supposedly possibly about the death of an ancestor; interesting but this death was years before the many records showing him alive.

And, more egregiously, there was this
AI said something had been done, when it hadn't. Challenged, it produced a transcript. Further challenged, it denied making it up. Before eventually confessing and promising never to do it again. Crocodile tears, like a child wanting to avoid heavier punishment but not really understanding they have done wrong.

I assume it's programmed to believe that what it has said is true. And, if it's true, then there must be a source. And, if all the sources are very similar, then this particular source must be like this. I see no sign that the programmers have ever read anything about the philosophy of science (tbf most scientists show no sign of it either).

3
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 03, 2025, 07:20 AM »
tbf the trails idea is good, and clinking a link as a subpage is fast and effective. Useful for some types of research.

In rests between thinking about, and setting up, my Vivaldi workflows - and reading about AI - I've look at various tree style browser solutions, and they appear to lack clarity of purpose and effective default behaviours. They don't seem adequate alternatives.

Having notes in the tree is also a very good idea - and not one I've come across  elsewhere. But the default behaviours are poor.

Which means that it's a system that might work well for those who want to keep all their info in the browser, but not for those that want to work with the notes.
And more a one-trick pony than a packhorse. And none of the expected comforts of a saddle horse either.

It's already apparent that for me Vivaldi is far faster and has fewer frictions for doing this type of research. This is partly because of the excellent inbuilt note options, and partly because of the availability of all my usual extensions. And a password manager that works. And it's not costing me an annual $60 $80.

4
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 03, 2025, 06:48 AM »
It confirmed that the price was $60 ... I clicked the talk to a person button and emailed. There has been no response.

I finally received a response by email:
"I have fixed the bug on the homepage, it should now correctly display either $80 or £60, not “$60”. "
The € price has been upped to €70.

Presumably this will help address this issue mentioned on their marketing page:
"Conversion Rate
The percentage of trial users who pay up. We're running at a ridiculous 25% versus the 10% industry standard—meaning we're still undercharging even after all our price experiments.
"

idk if they're going to let all the sites quoting $60 know

5
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 01, 2025, 08:31 AM »
Sorry for ranting on and on about this.

Please, please continue.

I am aware that I need to move in that direction with this. Not that I will move quickly.

When I was a student, I saw that the best understanding came from knowing all the details from the ground up, and that thinking consequently became superfast. I always worked to understand my data and processed through the underlying equations and maths before using formulae. I always distrusted blackbox packages. Still amazes me that Stats courses at uni concentrate on formulae, interpretations and packages with minimal effort given to teaching data types or shapes; afaics the most common failures irl come from a failure to understand the basic data. I suppose now they're moving(ed?) to AI.

Which is fair enough. Understanding and appreciating the basics isn't the same thing as wanting to do them manually every single time.

you already did a lot of legwork and have the data.

Legwork 'yes'; have the data 'no'; at least not in family history. But I will be recreating it; fairly straightforward because I do have all the finish points and remember the routes and already knew I needed to do that.

You can run a (smaller) local AI/LLM easily enough.
...
you will be very pleasantly surprised how well those small models perform, when you can let it go loose with your own proper data. And those will not rob you blind with subscription fees, token consumption limitations and possible overcharge fees.

Is local best for this? I know it's very personal data, but it's not private - it's virtually all derived from public databases after all.
Is the downside of the online models mostly to do with cost? In which case, I'd need to compare it with the cost of local. Without being slowed.

And that is fast enough for adept readers. Maybe not for speed readers, but given the state of today, there aren't that many persons anymore that have and/or use that skill.

I suspect I'm fast; idk about speed reader. Usually read 10+ books a week, frequently +++, as well as everything else.

Depending on your GPU hardware. Or lack thereof.

Lack entirely; not being a game player. And even shifted to basic level PCs in recent years because I don't (didn't) need power for anything. I really like my little Geecom mini.


you will see that even these smaller local LLM's are pretty good for helping you out finding what you need, collect this data and "feed" that into an external genealogy database.

You could even find out which research paths were a dead end, or maybe less of a dead end than envisioned, with a few simple prompts. Or tell the AI/LLM that those paths were already marked as a dead end, so not to be investigated (in an much more automated) way.

And that would definitely be good.

token consumption limitations and possible overcharge fees.
...
'LM Studio" (GUI tool for Windows, Linux and Mac) and/or "Msty" (GUI tool for Windows, Linux and Mac) or even "Ollama" (PowerShell/terminal-based text tool for Windows, Linux and Mac). ... LLM web-interfaces (such as 'Open-WebUI') to these tools.
...
LLM model search function build-in. Where I discovered model 'ui-tars-1.5-7b', which is surprisingly sound of logic (without giving it a system prompt to tweak it) given it's size. ... 4 to 5 tokens per second on a desktop with a 10th generation Intel i3 CPU (5 years old by now), no GPU of any kind, a small and simple 2,5" SATA SSD drive and 16 GByte of 3200 MHz RAM.
...
Just need to figure out the RAG solution for your collected data. Tools like 'Rlama' and 'LlamaIndex'

There's a whole new language for me to learn, as well as the content, as well as how to apply it.

--

My current plan is:
  • Gather the data. Organising and reorganising the searches in the browser.
  • Saving each organised sequence (aka "trail") into markdown - both Lattics and Tangent/Obsidian.
  • Using something else to help me visualise it and help me go forward. Might be some sort of data oriented PKM app, or AI or something else.
I appreciate that an AI oriented browser might be able to do the lot. But I'm extra hesitant to trust the whole process to a newly developed program with unknown (possible) pitfalls.



6
I've just experienced my first little glitch when using Lattics. I was just writing a response to Shades when the text disappeared. ctrl-z zilch. I assume that something interrupted its autosave. No settings I can tweak. tbf I've experienced more glitches with Obsidian, Tangent etc. Not recently with Word, and not with Keep.

7
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: May 31, 2025, 05:37 PM »
Perhaps you should take a look at Strawberry browser. Is on invite-basis only at the moment, not free either, because of AI, but the user interface appears to be well suited for (automating) research in combination with AI. Screenshots of the UI you can find here, as well as a complete description, a FAQ, some example animated Gif's, etc.

Thanks. I'll take a look; I'm certainly going to be paying more attention to browsers generally.

doesn't disappoint in the same way.

It may not seem like it, but I'm still very pleased about Horse. I'll admit that I now question whether the wonderful workflow I envisaged was somehow my own invention, but at the very least it was inspired by Horse. It should have been obvious - it was obvious! - but it had never occurred to me before.

Every now and then an interest in family history and genealogy takes hold of me. Because of the big gaps, I cannot remember the precise details of the work I have done or not done - especially failed searches. I know I should make detailed records, but I only ever do it incompletely, sometimes, and I'm unlikely to do better because it is a significant amount of drudgery for the remote prospect of a possible payoff in the distant future. This mostly automates the whole thing.

Off the top of my head, I recognise three types of search/research that seem to crop up in all domains.
  • One is planned and systematic. Defined data gathering, statistical analysis, maths. What most people think of as typical science, though science uses all these types.
  • The second is like a wood sculptor beachcombing for driftwood with potential. Probably one of the most common web activities. Despite being sometimes vilified as mindless collection, the items are often chosen as potential triggers for the imagination.
  • And the third is like the hunt for Bigfoot; you know it's there, you're sure it's there, it's just very, very hard to find and most trails lead nowhere. And you just need a bigger collider.
And it's only the third type that I imagined Horse helping with. Not that it matters. Now that I have the idea, the Vivaldi method will work perfectly well enough.

Family history research is a funny beast. Most of the data you work with is in archives, which constantly acquire new data. So search results may change over time. And sometimes the site will only cough up the data if you search x way rather than y way because search algorithms can be glitchy. The data is often mistranscribed and the original respondents were often misheard, or had limited knowledge, or downright lied. Does this record belong to that person?; does that person, or that record, truly belong in your family tree? Nothing is certain. Everything you 'learn' should have a probability estimate, but all you can do is write it down and keep some type of probability in your mind. You increase probabilities by triangulation. Preferably supported by copies of actual written records and not just transcriptions or someone else's assumptions. You constantly look for stuff to extend, but more often you look for supporting evidence, and even more often disconfirming evidence. A disappointing but useful outcome.

So covering old ground is the norm. And remembering the sites or the precise search terms is hard, but writing down every slight change in location or date range is tedious beyond belief. It had never occurred to me to store that information in a browser. Partly because the searching can seem haphazard - I tire of not finding Gobble Grimstone in Derby, exhaust my supply of variants, Gimstone, Gimston, Gimson, Jemson; and switch to Abel Turkey (probably Tukey oc) in Nottingham; and round and round in circles. Even worse I do find them, but with records that show they're not one of my ancestors and I have to start again. Partly because tabs always seemed haphazard themselves and using multiple browsers didn't help because I never saw them as central to my workflows. Seeing tabs as an outline was a real eye opener; I can shuffle and rename, even use emojis. Reorganise in the browser. And the power is amplified by moving the searches into a PKM notes app.

I appreciate the lure of AI in all of this; genealogy sites are using it directly in a limited way. But I'm also very wary. The data is already probabilistic. AI's internal logic must function around probabilities. I fear a tendency to be overly certain or even a willingness to invent a record that it has decided must exist. Even inventing an image of a Dog Latin birth register from an Irish parish wouldn't be beyond it. And I would have no way of weighing the AI's probabilities.

PS That was interesting. I looked at the Strawberry link. I'd never quite realised that Lattics would just open URLs in one of its own windows.

8
Mini-Reviews by Members / Horse Browser Review
« on: May 30, 2025, 09:29 AM »
What is Horse Browser?

"The internet browser that's designed for research. Organise notes and websites into projects, have all your work in one place, and get more done."
"Browse the internet with a simple sidebar and organise all your pages, tasks and projects into 'Trails®'. Trails® are nested groups of pages that capture the natural flow of your internet travels.
Yes, that means no more tabs, bookmarks or history.
Unfold, organise, name and add emojis to simple, meditative Trails® that fold away in a click."
"the browser built for professionals who demand focus and efficiency"


I use many browsers, and usually three or four of them are open. I have always found them pretty poor for focused research, so the premise made sense to me. I had already decided to set aside one browser specifically and it was almost easier to switch to something new. The key features required for research are maximising focus and keeping detailed records; most browsers enhance access to distractions and make record keeping effortful.

How does Horse work?

The major innovation in Horse is a vertical outline instead of tabs (horizontal or vertical). This is genuinely helpful. Outlines allow folding. The search process is easily visible through the trails and subtrails in a way that will already be familiar. The width of the left outline pane can be moved so that the details of each page can be read quickly, making it easy to leap back in even after being away for a few weeks. Pages can be renamed and moved around the outline.

Plaintext notes can be placed at any point in the outline to form a record of comments and conclusions.

And any point in the outline (with children) can be exported into a markdown outline (the notes are pure text anyway, but the web pages are exported in markdown format) so that there is a full record of the search process and conclusions.

Three extensions are incorporated - Ghostery, Dark Reader and Saddlepack (Horse's own password manager). Ghostery and Dark Reader work well and enhance focus. Saddlepack stores passwords but doesn't autofill; there's an intention to enable external password manager extensions, though I don't know if that would enable all Chromium extensions. Since most of the sites I need for research require accounts and logons, this is a major friction for me.

Notes Friction

There are many keyboard shortcuts for trails and web pages: you can expand, shrink, go up, down, left, right, in, out and do the hokey cokey (pokey in US). And admittedly the shortcuts can be complex 4 key combos; but you can edit the keys - though I've never persuaded the changes to save.

But there are no shortcuts for notes. None. At all. The move keys work (at least for move left and move right), but to create a new note you have to go to the tiny icon at the top of the left pane and click on it; this creates a new note at the bottom, which you can then move into position (with mouse being easiest). To directly create a new note as a subnote (the most frequent need), you need to click on the tiny hamburger on the current tab and then select New Note from the menu.

These are not UI design choices by someone who uses notes extensively. Most people do their browsing using their mouse predominantly; virtually all users write notes using their keyboard.

Pricing

The price is widely advertised as $60 annual subscription. In the past it has had lifetime subscriptions, and higher and lower prices (usually lower); changes appear unusually often.

When I looked at my own receipt, I noted that I had been charged £60 (as compared to an expected £45 to reflect the current exchange rate). Looking through their FAQs I noted a reference to a price of €60, so I suspect that's what many users in Europe will be charged.

Customer Support

There's the Horse Discord and emails to Support.

When I enquired about support for keyboard shortcuts for notes, I was directed to the list of keyboard shortcuts. When I pointed out that there was nothing for notes, my access to the Discord was removed. I had wondered why it was such an empty discord compared to many. That wasn't a great response, but oh well; Lattics has a long abandoned Discord and there's still active support through the app.

I emailed support about my overcharging. Firstly requesting a refund of the amount overcharged and then another suggesting a four month licence extension as an alternative (I thought that might be simpler for them). I received two email replies from their AI support bot. As is the way with AI, it invented it's own question and then answered that. It confirmed that the price was $60; it understood my concern about the pricing difference and pointed towards the full refund in the first thirty day option; "Unfortunately, our sources don't specifically address extending subscription end dates as an alternative to refunds"; it asked whether that helped or whether I wanted to talk to a person. I clicked the talk to a person button and emailed. There has been no response.

My personal experience has been of customer evasion rather than customer support.

So, where next?

My little trip with Horse highlighted the value of a full record of my research journeys. It's helpful to know what I'm looking for and what strategies I have pursued. Of particular value is being able to revisit all the dead-ends and frustrated searches because they are the ones I am likely to want to return to when I have fresh ideas about what else I can do. Horse is actually not very good for this - it's lists of places visited rather than anything else.

I thought of Edge: I recalled mentions of it being good for vertical tabs and having notes; but I wasn't enthused. It's a long time since I used Opera. But I knew that Notes were quite a big feature in Vivaldi.

Horse has an article of the best browsers for research. Critiques Vivaldi - "Known as the most customisable browser out there, Vivaldi can be fine-tuned to suit you. That said, customisation takes time and can also end up in a distracted user experience"; "Free… But, again, there’s no free lunch here… While Vivaldi doesn’t track its users or sell data to the same extent as some other browsers, it does earn revenue through search engine and bookmark partnerships". My own experience of Vivaldi is that I pay no attention to the bazillion features that don't interest me; it's not entirely positive, as I've had issues with some webpages, but it floats in and out of being my most used browser.

So I determined to set it up specifically for research - I will suffer no loss of focus because I'm not using it that much on my desktop right now.

Vivaldi

Vivaldi has Workspaces; kin to Horse's Areas and folders. It has two level tab stacks. Stuff can be moved around. Usable. Adequate. But not as flexible or as visually descriptive as Horse's outline.

But the notes are infinitely better. When you have the notes panel open, you can write you note while still on a web page; you can cut and paste (or select and grab) between the two. A keyboard shortcut opens  notes in the main pane where a note can be written or edited in markdown rich text.
At this point, there are options. You can move notes into the tab stack; or you can copy the web pages into a note. For me, it's smoothest to write the note as I go along and copy pages into them; my heavyweight work is in my PKM notes app so the note was always my ultimate destination. And when I finish, I copy the history in too, so that I have a blow by blow record of my journey.

Vivaldi also has multiple navigation options.

And extensions. So I can use my password manager to login to all the sites I use for research. And upload articles to Readwise and my citation managers. Etc. Friction is minimised.

I wouldn't claim that Vivaldi is the best solution, even for my own work; idk. But I can definitively say that it is a far better solution for me than Horse, and Horse is unlikely to ever catch up.

Conclusions
Horse has a very neat idea but its potential is unrealised if only from the point of view of my own needs. Fundamentally, it's good for those who only want a curated and organised search history and record, with occasional incorporated notes; especially when they prefer to keep it all stored long-term in the browser.

It feels like a personal hobby project where substantial effort has been expended on monetising and marketing. The most recent incarnation of the website contains multiple messages that come over as empty AI garbage.

I came across  (this thread on Reddit).
"there's some dude and a gang of bots astroturfing this sub about "horse browser" which looks just like some typical chromium garbage. They're definitely astroturfing, and doing a really spray and pray approach, because they commented on a [4 month old post of mine](https://www.reddit.c...queeze_all_features/) on this sub with barely any comments, and magically 20 minutes later, that comment has 10 upvotes, and would you look at that, it's the top comment when you click on the post. I think there's some chatgpt shit going on because just look at the messages:"
"I'm the sole person behind Horse Browser, I want to clarify that this spam was not my doing but the result of an overly enthusiastic affiliate. I've just addressed this issue directly with them"
'Thanks. Removed some of the comments. If the account keeps it up, it will be banned'

Horse marketing


Unfortunately it doesn't feel as if the same effort has been expended on meeting - or even understanding - the needs of its customers. The investment of a heavy research user into a process and workflow is substantial, certainly greater than the price of an app, and there's a need for longevity and professionalism in the tools used. I have no confidence of either with Horse.

Final Conclusion

Obviously I requested a refund.
This message came up on the Stripe refund page "we would appreciate it if you consider canceling without requesting a refund; that way we can keep working on improving Horse Browser for when you come back later." I ignored it.


9
I've just come across a browser designed for research, that solves my biggest problems in some areas and will be using it forthwith.

It's relatively new, still immature, has limited features and some points of friction; and isn't cheap ($60 a year atm). No tabs. What it does have is "trails" showing all the websites and notes made in lines of research; these can be exported to markdown (and later reimported if wanted). The searched sites can be opened from the links in notes programs that understand markdown.

It's particularly useful for recording unsuccessful searches since they tend to be left out during normal note-taking and it's easy to find yourself going in circles over ground you have covered before (you=me). This browser solves that problem. It doesn't have many other features, but those it does have are very useful (dark reader, ad blocking, focus mode); it's very comfortable to work in.

I'd say that it's particularly suitable for research where you try multiple searches trying to answer one question (such as genealogy/shopping research etc) but mightn't be particularly advantageous if you are doing wide searches for many different things. It's also more effective if you are already using a notes program that understands markdown links.

https://gethorse.com/

 https://www.youtube..../watch?v=7gvxrieLvII

I've written A review of my experience with Horse. Suffice it to say, that it didn't go according to plan.

10
So the latest update came out yesterday - less than two weeks since the previous one. That feels fairly typical. Maybe it's useful to give an idea of typical updates:

[Editor] The performance of the editor has been GREATLY improved, hundreds of thousands of words can be input smoothly without any lag.
[Project Outline] Supports automatic numbering and automatic sort out
[Card Library] Supports displaying cards of all sub-tags under a tag.
[Math Equation] In the LaTex syntax mode of the mathematical equation editor, it supports prompts and automatic completion of LaTex syntax.
[Shortcut Keys] During editing, Cmd/Ctrl + Up/Down can quickly locate the top or bottom of the document, and double-clicking the top and bottom of the editor can also quickly locate it.
[Optimize] Improved data backup and restore backup logic.
[Optimize] Improved the reliability of data storage.
[Fixed] Solved the problems of parsing ChatGPT listed number, focus mode, menu display, screenshot saving, code block border display, etc.
That's quite a few things updated - again fairly typical.

I'm a little surprised at the improvement in editor speed - it's never felt at all slow to me. Maybe they were responding to a request from users trying to paste in a books worth of text at a time. Most of these look like user requests. I'd noticed the sub-tag issue myself though I wasn't bothered enough to ask for a change.

11
I sometimes feel that I have only scratched 10% of Lattics' functions. Partly because of the way I'm using it at the moment (oriented to particular writing projects and using it as a writing program rather than as a research or notes program), and partly because I've been sticking to familiar workflows.

Naturally I took a look at the new filter features; I used the extended pane. Then switched from card view to mindmap view: the extended pane stayed in card view while the R pane switched to the mindmap, with its own filter. The extra filters don't work in mindmap view.

(I'm not sure whether I should see that as a sensible decision or whether it was just forgotten during the coding. The mindmap is a view of the outline tree of articles - so it makes sense that would have no filters. But I realised that the mindmap view could be filtered by single tags as well as by articles!)

Obviously there is no actual mindmap when using a tag filter since that is a property of an article. Instead there is just a whiteboard which will show articles as well as notes. They can be freely moved around the board (including stacking them on top of each other), dotted lines show existing links and more connections can be made (with the option for adding text to the connection and changing line colour). New notes can be added and will be automatically tagged. It's all wonderfully useful - and I hadn't known it was there. I should maybe have read the manual.

12
One year three weeks ago, I suggested that Lattics add cumulative Boolean filters. And late last night, in the v2.5.3 update, they added them! Massively helpful for my everyday use, and a reflection of the developers' responsiveness to suggestions that accord with Lattics' core workflows.
They also added a couple of extra filters, extended PDF functionality, adaption to conttents posted from DeepSeek and ChatGPT and enabled copying rich text to Word and other word processors.
My key observation is that all updates - and they are quite frequent - improve core workflows. Many will be suggestions from users and none change the basic uses of the program.
Communication in the English language social media, Discord etc, has virtually died but responsiveness to emails etc is very good.

13
When I started using Lattics it was a very slow and gradual process; initially I moved in simple WIP, and expanded from there. The timeline feature didn't even exist. The documentation was incomplete (it's been better done imo for recently introduced features). It took time for me to get my head around the most comfortable workflows for starting new projects or bringing over more complex WIP. So I've written a simple summary of how to do it - originally for my own use.

Suggestions for starting a project and planning/plotting in Lattics.
The key fact to remember is that content text exists only once in the database. Everything else is an editable view of that content - articles, cards, timeline events, mindmap nodes (and will be &etc when they introduce new views - whiteboard apparently on way) - edit one, edit all; and don't delete cards unless you want that content gone (you can always retrieve them from the trash).

The best starting point, once you know you want a new project, is to work out the tagging system. Lattics uses hierarchical tags and they're not simple to edit once you have them set up; but it is quite simple to work out the system at the beginning and to add to it afterwards. It can all be set up later, and it is quite simple to add tags to a group of cards, but it might require a bit of effort to check that you have tagged everything you want.

First set up your project - ie create a folder for it.
You should gather all the already existing cards you want to use and add them to the project; that won't remove them from any other project they are already in. You might want to add project tags too.
Then it's just a question of preference and the needs of the project.

If you like traditional outlining, there a couple of options.
You can just write the outline on a project page or in a card (no need to use bullet points); because each entry is a block, it is easy enough to convert them to cards (the text will still show in the outline). Alternatively, you can just outline using the document tree directly. Or you can use tables to do something similar. Personally, I'd choose the first because it's simpler to add comments. This is the simplest place to start if you already have a clear idea of the narrative structure

If you are still brainstorming, with no idea of structure, a better place to start may be the mindmap/graph. If there are no articles, then it's a blank canvas and it's easy to click to add cards and draw arrows between them. There's little control of appearance, just enough to start playing with possibilities; presumably the whiteboard view, when it comes, will bring a richer visual experience.

If you have some idea of "events", then look to the timeline. Events on a timeline can be given start and end times - but they're optional, and you don't have to think of them in that way. There are lanes which contain tracks and events are placed in the tracks. Many projects won't need more than one lane. Effectively it's a grid making it easy to see arcs and people over time. The mindmap/graph is a blank canvas and the timeline is a gridded canvas. It can be used in exactly the same way as the plotting and character grids in other writing programs. It's worth remembering, if you are setting times, that there's a minimum size for an event on the graph which can make them look a bit out of place at some zoom levels.

Of course, it's entirely possible to follow all these approaches at the same time - edits in one will update all.


Again, when I started I was slightly apprehensive about how fragile the workflows might be and stuff just breaking - an all too frequent experience with many newser apps. But it has actually (touch forests, cross toes) been robust so far; and felt like it too.

14
I have always been aware of the importance of forgetting.
And of minimising cognitive effort.
And yet notes programs tend to focus on total recall and users often choose high effort strategies for managing their notes. Brute force rather than optimised effort.

My mind was drawn to this by a Reddit query from a user who appeared to systematically go through all the notes they had taken and classify or discard them. Wasting the effort in the discarded notes and losing the potential value to future needs.

I will massively oversimplify human memory:
Two main recall/memory systems: episodic/sequential and semantic/categorical. Forgetting avoids recall being clogged up by irrelevant memories - but this forgetting is more akin to fading losing the path than it is to wiping the memory out. Fading is governed by recency and frequency. Recognition memory is possibly used even more frequently in everyday life but needs the stimulus in front of us.

The highest brute force recall in programs is Search (but with the disadvantage that search terms need to be fairly precise). Folders offer Search within defined limits (but user has to know where the desired note is kept and there's often significant user effort in deciding where to put the note originally). Tags are kin to simple predefined Saved Searches and filters; they all depend on recognition of the desired note(s). The advantage of the tags etc system is that it also shows notes that are in some way similar - and notes are rarely wanted on their own. Effectively these are semantic/categorical equivalents.
Programs are less often designed to present notes in an episodic sequence. iirc the original Evernote was designed around it. The Daily Notes popularised by Roam Research is another way of achieving the same thing, but it only does this if all notes are in Daily Notes. Programs using Folders tend to put them into silos and so explicitly don't have a 'see everything in sequence' view. iirc Heptabase had such a view, but the best I have seen is in Lattics. This allows all notes to be seen as cards with view options for summary, summary with images, preview and list. The advantage is that it enables very fast visual scanning with notes being chosen by recognition. Sequence is by latest edit, so I have a recency effect as well.
Another feature popularised by Roam was wikilinking, where notes can be seen as a network of links from a note and backlinks to a note (similar to Luhmann's zettelkasten, but also reminiscent of the Citation Index tomes I well remember from academic libraries; many happy hours spent going backwards and forwards between papers and tomes until I had distilled a network of key papers, researchers and topics; computers just don't have the same aura as reference libraries and books, preferably tomes). Again, it's a typical feature of human memory where one memory will stimulate others to come forward.

Forgetting
Why exactly is forgetting important?
Primarily it's about resource management, prioritisation, and limits to attention and conscious thinking. It clears the memory and thinking palette of noise.
Forgetting is not about the deletion of memories; it's about making them progressively harder to access. The mind also needs to be open to random thoughts and submerged memories: wide open increases the potential for creativity; focus and trying to remember closes that shutter. Bringing one of those into the palette reinforces it and improves future accessibility.
The same factors are important with PKM notes.

But I know of no program that advertises its ability to forget. That's something the user has to devise for themselves - so long as they are aware that forgetting is important.
And the lowest cognitive effort way of doing this is by doing nothing where that is possible.
The difficulty is that most programs are not well set up to do useful forgetting. They either lose the note completely or render it inaccessible except through a very time consuming search process (ie high effort). Because of its fast scanning through episodic notes, Lattics offers another way of finding untagged, unfoldered notes. I only tag or link notes when I know I want that route and at that point it's very easy to do.
And from time to time I delete tags that I know I won't need in the future. The underlying notes are unaffected but there's less overhead when scanning the tag list.

The scanning with Lattics only works for me because I use a large monitor (8 cards on one row) and many of my notes are visually distinct. I'm not sure it would work with the other notes programs I am familiar with. Obsidian probably - but the tweaking is the very definition of high cognitive effort. But I'm sure something similar could be done in some other programs. Maybe the whiteboard notes programs. I assume that the next way of doing this will be using AI.
The system is different to zettelkasten (which has it's own semi-forgetting system - where notes have a parent but no children, are never referenced by any other zettel, and aren't indexed) and structurally different to the process I previously diagrammed (the actual process is somewhat similar but the cognitive effort is much reduced, and the overall structure is essentially flat).

15
I have now written a number of notes in NN. Despite the UI improvement, it's still not close to the same class for usability as Lattics and Tangent. I semi-regularly moan to myself about some perceived deficiency (eg tab won't indent a paragraph - if I want similar functionality I have to use bullets; getting into a focus mode is cumbersome). Sometimes I want to just write the note in something else and then paste it in; Proton Docs isn't too bad for that (it would somewhat remove the point of NN if I used something less secure to write the original before pasting in). But it's okay.
I'm not entirely sure SN is okay. The free version is very limited and I have no desire to use it. Quite a few negative comments keep floating too. Including once when the sync server was down for quite a while (NN's monograph server has been down once for a few hours only). Communication with the user base doesn't seem great rn. But we'll see.
Proton Docs (pale imitation of google Docs) seems functional.

One similarity I have noticed between Lattics and NN is the primacy of the individual notes. Folders (aka documents or notebooks) exist, but it's as easy to put a note in multiple folders as it is to give them multiple tags. And the views are very similar. I have a suspicion that many modern apps are designed in this way.
One difference between them is that NN is very responsive to users, while Lattic's Discord seems abandoned and that's the only public communication channel I know of. But Lattic's development is coherent and seems to be following a clear plan and purpose, while NN's feature list seems random, apart from the security emphasis which is its purpose. I'm not convinced that user requests are the best way to enhance usability - every user wants something different.

16
Update on Proton/Standard Notes/Notesnook

Come Black Friday offers, I'll subscribe to Proton Ultimate.
A couple of months before that I might subscribe to Standard Notes - as a trial with the intention to cancel and then resubscribe (or not) on Black Friday. I need to be much clearer about how it will progress in the future under Proton's ownership; I'd like to see more development; given the current climate, I'd prefer to have the option of using European servers; I'll want to see that it's at least as good as Notesnook.

Notesnook has the virtues of the curate's egg. It's belief in privacy and security appears to be a core belief not an addon; it's open source. otoh the value of open source depends on the number of good eyes inspecting the code, and it's a relatively small app. It only has three coders in total. The last update included fixing a security weakness they were told about. There are some nice security related features like their monographs (encrypted shareable notes). The overall design is pretty standard. But usability isn't great and the UI seems relatively poor. Maybe I've just been spoilt by the apps I have been using recently.

It's currently working on keyboard shortcuts. It does have some, but many commands can only be accessed by mouse. Now I'm far more mouse oriented than most on this site, but the mouse suits some commands, depending on the workflow, and not others. The relatively new command palette helps, but involves a lot of scrolling and doesn't include all commands. And documentation is virtually non-existent; there is a (limited) online help document - but I only discovered the trigger for the command palette by reading some comments made when the feature was released. No wikilinks. It doesn't parse #tags written in the notes - you have to use the apps own tagging workflow. Search is unsophisticated.

I'd find it unusable - compared to many other apps - if I were trying to use it for all my notes. But I'm not, so I can live with it - but am very open to alternatives. And I will continue to use a security and privacy oriented accessible notes app. I have found it liberating to have one available. My previous system was secure, but the friction meant that I often didn't take notes or tucked them away in imperfect containers like password managers. So, whatever Notesnook's imperfections, it's better than that.

I've seen Anytype suggested as a secure notes program. I don't see it like that. It's interested in security, and data is encrypted and can be local; its AWS servers are in Switzerland. But although the data is encrypted, the indices are not. I suspect other features, eg collaboration, are as important to it as security. I also find it convoluted.

20250302 094751 UPDATE EDIT
Barely a couple of days later there's a few updates.

I downloaded latest version of NN (update button and auto mechanism reportedly not working on v3.0.28), and then switched to the beta channel - so now on 3.1.0 - beta.0.

There's a considerable change in the UI layout, and overall it's a considerable improvement. And there's now reportedly a keyboard shortcut for focus mode - though I can't remember what it was supposed to be (and it's not one I personally need).


Also a SN comment that though there's no feature updating currently, they are working with Proton on improving the backend



17
Lattics still going well. But I perceive a need to rejig my security system. I currently use encrypted folders and files; this works well enough but accessibility is high friction and notes etc are also vulnerable when they are opened.

My needs are relatively simple - I doubt I need much more than links, tags, tables, images and attachments. I'll cope with markdown if I have to but rich text is preferred because of colour. And I don't expect ever to have a huge volume of notes in it. My list of candidates quickly reduced to Standard Notes and Notesnook.

My preference is probably Standard Notes: it's been going longer and was taken over by Proton last year which ought to give it the edge in hardening expertise - and it's based in Switzerland. I do note though the lack of development since the take over and criticisms of the tables implementation. And the price is high. I don't want to justify that for what will be low volume use. I do also note that both Proton and Standard Notes typically have big Black Friday/Cyber Monday offers and that those discounts then roll on so long as the subscription is maintained. There's an expectation that there will be some sort of joint Proton/Standard subscription plan but so far nothing has been announced formally; Proton Ultimate subscribers have been given substantial discounts on request.

Notesnook stores notes in Germany but the developer is based in Pakistan. More whizz bang than SN, as if it wants to compete with mainstream notes apps but with a security USP. But cheaper, and considerably cheaper if you're in education or comparing with SN prices without discount. Notesnook also has discounts from time to time, but the discounts don't rollover.

I've dabbled mildly with both in the past but the free versions are missing features required for substantial use. Feels as if you have to be in properly to get a true feel about them. My current plan is to subscribe to Notesnook and then have a look at SN/Proton pricing around Black Friday, keeping my eyes open for anything that arises before then. Unfortunately export/import between SN and Notesnook appears not to be straightforward and easy.

18
Backups used to be in json format; I'm not sure now, although they still seem to be readable.
I've had a very quick look in both text editor and Easy Data Transform.
Not json.
But pretty confident that I can extricate the text in a useful form, should that ever be needed.

The value of the workflows for general PKM notes has gradually become more apparent, so this is a useful confidence boost. My most recent stance had been to use Lattics for notes where using it had a clear advantage. I'm now shifting to a trial of using it for all notes, except when there's a strong reason for using a different program. The main advantages are practice and inertia, which has been the case since I started with putting writing related notes in. Those notes are my bread and butter and the pull of gravity has taken over.

19
From a writing perspective, I've found that the new timeline feature allows a new very productive workflow. It's use for historical events is obvious and can be pure research rather than writing.

But it also works as a way of starting with 'events' in fiction. Each event put on the timeline exists as a note, with all the notes' ability to put text into documents. Which allows an easy linkage between events and chapters without assuming the sequence of both will be the same. Everything modifiable as writing progresses. Clear separation of the 'events' themselves and the manuscript.

Many fiction writers imagine scenes completely out of sync with the manuscript. Creating the problem of what to do with that imagining. Is it worth writing them down when the manuscript realities may be different by the time the scene is reached? If so, where to put it? This solves that dilemma because it can simply be written as an event on the timeline, which can be modified later and put in the manuscript or not.

20
One (minor? major?) concern I haven't mentioned is the old Obsidian query of 'How many notes can it handle before it slows down?'.  I have no answer to this. So far it is very fast. Local ought to be fast. But I don't have a huge number of notes or books full of text. I did test Obsidian and found it choked with large books as a single note; I was never interested in outlandish numbers of notes. Do images matter? - I doubt it.

I don't treat it as a general dumping ground. But I am finding that it's the best home for an increasing number of categories of notes. I've even worked out that I could put everything in (untagged, unlinked notes effectively disappear except for search and the notes calendar). It's actually very good for ephemeral notes, which always made me uncomfortable with programs where notes=files.

21
I've not tried to use it with web clips. I'm not sure it has a web clipper, so that might be a limitation.
I don't think it does.
On reflection, it may be that this illustrates the program's focus on local and print (not on paper but file equivalent formats like PDF); idk if that will change. Academic and longform writing is perfectly suited by this. I'm aware that Zotero Connector does a form of web clipping, but I've never used it; possibly I might need to start working with Zotero assuming I continue with Lattics. It seems to me that most notes programs have a web focus (but most writing programs don't, even if they're only accessible online). The closest Lattics gets is the ability to sync over the web - WebDAV etc; OneDrive a recently added option - which has been gradually developing.

15 Jan 2025
For my personal use, I usually save pages and part pages into Readwise Reader. That deals with the clipping without cluttering Lattics. And very easy to cut and paste as needed from Reader. There are many other workflows to achieve the same thing.

22
I'm not a writer, but am fascinated by the how of it. So i really enjoy your descriptions of software and workflows.
Thanks. I've just had a good look at their landing page and it does give a good overview of what the program can currently do - much better than their last version.
I've not seen anything quite like it. It's not that there's anything unique about any given feature, but the way they fit together with what seems a clear idea about the program's purpose. The whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts - and I can't say the same about all writing programs.

I'm afraid that my perspective is rather blinkered by my own needs. I suspect the use cases extend well beyond writing and academia. I can see that it seems a good fit for anyone doing family history. Maybe even stockmarket investing.
I've not tried to use it with web clips. I'm not sure it has a web clipper, so that might be a limitation.

The absence of tasklists, calendar and journal is very obvious (most PKM apps seem to regard them as obligatory). A very good thing imho. Clarity about what the program is for is helped by clarity about what the program isn't for. I wish more programs resisted the kitchen sink.




23
I'm very aware that I seem to have gone into reverse with using Lattics. And I'm not at all comfortable with that; I still remember all the drivers that pushed me away from databases and towards simple files. But then programs like Obsidian and Tangent aren't simple, and neither really are the files. And the limitations of the markdowns for anything except simple web markup are all too apparent.

And it seems that I have always been aware of what I really needed:-

Essentially I do two things, though many types of both: I write and I research.
I had quite a reasonable workflow using database style programs but was aware of increasing issues over long-term viability, which is where I started with this thread. Moved on to files (good), though without ever stopping using databases for short-term tasks, and plaintext (markdown is ubiquitous but not good).

Most of the thread has been about research. By definition that's long-term and so file solutions were always best. I keep two types of research - actual hard research or reflections, most of it in highly focused fields, and a scrapbook, which is anything I see I find interesting and might be able to use in future. I can be quite adventurous in looking for research techniques. Everyone has their own techniques, efficiency and effectiveness is hard to prove and most of what I need is in my head anyway. But files and links have big advantages. And similar techniques could work for fiction too.

But the writing is ultimately more important - I could live by writing without research, but not vice versa. Three essential elements in writing are content, structure and words. With the words, the ultimate is being in the flow and the wrong editor gets in the way of that.
..
Ideally, I'd have an editor that joined the research with the writing .. And it's hard for me to avoid the need for me to be in rich text/docx at some point. My markets are print not web.

And if I ask myself whether Lattics ticks those ideal boxes, I'd have to say that it does. And does it well. The concerns are purely those that started me off. And if I'd had a database program that met my needs as well as Lattics does then I wouldn't have reached the point of actually setting out on this journey.

24
PS your link doesn't work (the http is doubled http://https//lattics.com/).

https://lattics.com


Thanks. I've changed it.

25
I'll just add that I'm also looking at Lattics.

Over the year since this post, I have increasingly played with Lattics and now use it for everything writing related; effectively it's the stage before Word where it has many advantages over the Word/OneNote combo.

I've done some sort of summary here - Comments on Lattics

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79next