I'm thinking of going primitive, with discursion into zettelkasten

[Dormouse]

I did not know logseq was moving to be a database first.  Nor did I know there was org support other than what was offered by being plain text.

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

You can see what's going on org-wise by reading the Org section on its Discord. I think virtually all users chose to go with markdown, so it's unsurprising that org gets less love.

I think it's probably a wise decision for logseq to move to a database model. I don't think it ever gained much from being files based except a few users from Obsidian. It has problems with speed. My impression is that there has been a trend for users to move away from it, notwithstanding the widespread praise for its PDF handling. Again, you can catch up with complaints etc on its Discord.

oc reading the Discord is time consuming.

[Dormouse]

Do you know what kind of database tangent uses?  Do have any information about if it lags as the data it has grows?

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

Just files and jsons.
I've not seen a problem with lags in general. It's rather like Obsidian in that there's some initial lag while it parses the files in the folder and that it can snarl up on files that are very big or otherwise awkward.

I've stopped using Tangent/Obsidian/markdown editors for notes with images. The links are too vulnerable.

what I like about tangent is it has a number of views

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

I find being able to switch between list and car view very useful. Easier to pick out the note I want as a card than from reading text.

I also like just being able to type.

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

This is the main thing for me. It's nice to work in. Nice to write in. Nice to review notes in. It's productive.
But you should check it has the features you need, or that you have a workaround.

I want a wholistic system I can tweak.

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

And Tangent is open source now, so anything is possible.

[sphere]

I think it's probably a wise decision for logseq to move to a database model. I don't think it ever gained much from being files based except a few users from Obsidian. It has problems with speed. My impression is that there has been a trend for users to move away from it, notwithstanding the widespread praise for its PDF handling. Again, you can catch up with complaints etc on its Discord.

oc reading the Discord is time consuming.

-Dormouse (February 21, 2024, 05:10 PM)

Yeah discord reading is time consuming

Out on the internet and youtube obsidian is dominating- i think because it is open to being hacked and offers control. Lots of people have either had a program they use stop working or (more likely) an online service stop working without the tools to get their data out.  I have been there.  I cannot believe more people do not know about tangent.

I really like the videos I have seen on logseq's pdf handling and there are integrations with zotero.
 

[Dormouse]

I just wish that notezilla allowed the ability to sync using my own choice of cloud services

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

Yeah. I think its main reliable income comes from the sync though.

I  would like those postit notes to be accessible outside the postit app

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 03:03 PM)

I haven't checked out other postit apps in a long time.
I always have NZ running, and I do like the abnility to wirk with the postis in the app/window they're attached to OR in the NZ notes manager.

[sphere]

I've stopped using Tangent/Obsidian/markdown editors for notes with images. The links are too vulnerable.

-Dormouse (February 21, 2024, 05:24 PM)

Vulnerable how?  Like you link to the directory with the images in it, and that link breaks?  Or they break when trying to sync between different systems (something I have had problems with)?
It just seems like that is something that should have been solved.

[Dormouse]

Out on the internet and youtube obsidian is dominating ...  I cannot believe more people do not know about tangent.

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 05:34 PM)

I think Obsidian was the first of the Roamalikes to get any traction. Started with some credibility (from Dynalist), had a techie crowd onboard from the beginning and took off with students - esp Comp Sci students. And it added features at a remarkable pace and then took off when the API came out. It's a program for hackers & players rather than users imho. A potential problem for the future is that students are high turnover and have a voracious appetite for the new.

Tangent came much later (via Taylor's dissatisfaction with Obsidian) and has far fewer features. Not the main focus for the developer who made it for his own daily use, whereas Obsidian quickly became the main full-time focus for its two developers. And no-one has battened on to it as a base for their own YouTube brand (I noticed that Capacities was quick to appoint someone to do that).

[Dormouse]

Vulnerable how?  Like you link to the directory with the images in it, and that link breaks?  Or they break when trying to sync between different systems (something I have had problems with)?
It just seems like that is something that should have been solved.

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 05:40 PM)

Solved by textbundle, except no-one supports it.
My experience is that directories move around and that when you move files around they may not have access to the original directory. Or they get renamed. Irritating rather than insurmountable.  If you have a highly structured approach and are disciplined enough to stick within it, there won't be a problem.

Except in the end I think they all break. Like images on web pages. Or web pages themselves. I worked out that if I have all the assets I refer to in the file, then nothing ever gets lost.

[sphere]

I worked out that if I have all the assets I refer to in the file, then nothing ever gets lost.

-Dormouse (February 21, 2024, 06:03 PM)

I have had issues using Window's documents folder or download folder.  I try to go up to something like c:workdir because if i change computers then I can likely create that same folder.

So file, like the same folder/directory?  Yeah that is hard for me, because I like to keep things in folder based on the contact/project/interest/category.   

Solved by textbundle, except no-one supports it.

Was not familiar with textbundle.  When checking out textbundle I looked at the supporting applications http://textbundle.org/ and I saw keepmark among many many Mac apps.
Keepmark is not open source. Single developer but it has some merits.  Not as nice as tangent but there are a bunch of ways to dispay information and also it looks like it can pull in and process data from bookmarks, web pages etc.
https://keepmark.io/
https://www.youtube....JWlv35p4jEqx4jrpIq6Q
looks like this is the developer https://github.com/tchudyk/

[Dormouse]

many many Mac apps.

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 11:00 PM)

Yeah, quite a few Mac apps, but very few on Windows. Only one I've used is Zettlr, but I've not checked how that goes since I haven't used it in ages. Seems like there was a fair wind of Mac enthusiasm a decade ago, but then it died and has never picked up again.

I've read a Zettlr response to a request for textbundle to be settable as a default format:

thanks for the issue! Unfortunately, this is not possible. There are several reasons to that:

Both TextBundle and TextPack have been designed specifically for inter-application sharing of notes and cross-device sharing. They were never intended to be used as a default storage container.
TextBundles are basically just folders within folders, so using these by default would inflate the amount of folders within your application unnecessarily; additionally, information will be stored redundantly, thereby consuming more space than with the current setup. Additionally, it would take a longer startup time, as more information needs to be processed, and the current File System Abstraction Layer already has a lot to do parsing 10,000+ files due to the lack of caching methods.
The "good" way to work with Markdown files is to store notes in one directory and use a single img, assets, or images-directory to collect all images being used across the notes in that directory. This means: If you need an image a second time, you can simply link it to both files. Additionally, you'll have more control over what is stored where. Zettlr already gives you the option to automatically store pasted images in a predefined "collection" folder.
Markdown is intended to be used as a format that is both machine-readable and human-readable; to add additional layers of information makes it harder to write programs to address these issues.
TL;DR: The default way is and will be to have single Markdown files with the images in a different folder. TextBundle and TextPack, however, can be used to share specific information with other users, devices, or applications.

So that wouldn't work for me. I don't mind duplication if it guarantees security and I dislike the approved markdown default setup.

So file, like the same folder/directory?

-sphere (February 21, 2024, 11:00 PM)

No, as in a text file with images.
I'm okay managing folders of digital assets, but if I write something with images I want the image locked in with the text and not relying on a link.
docx okay, databases with good export okay, but .md isn't.
Luckily few of my notes or writing needs images, and my writing is in docx now anyway which is fine.

[Dormouse]

The thread has moved on, with no further comment on Upnote?

-rjbull (February 09, 2024, 04:55 PM)

I decided to move it into test mode.

-Dormouse (February 17, 2024, 05:43 PM)

I also read a post on the Workflowy Slack from user Frank G - “I have been using Msft Word for Mac  (Windows before) for as long as I can remember. I have also played with Craft, Ulysses , Scrivener, Speare, Author , Typora , all excellent alternatives. Today WF finally ate them all up too for my long form docs . The blank page with a few basic formatting choices plus WF’s speed (once opened) , simplicity, and flexibility, has made WF my go to choice for long form doc drafts . I will still need to export to Word (or Craft)  for final formatting and PDF conversion, but 95% of my time I will be with WF .”

Essentially this refers to the Roamlike feature where bullets can transform into text blocks. Logsec has had this for some time too.
It struck me that it might be worth comparing the editors in (some of) the apps that I use, what makes them good and how Upnote compares.

One group is writing apps: ie those where there is a published output, especially those with longform output is in print formats. Important features include:

• a look and feel that sustains focussed concentration for long periods;
• a presentation that shows the reader experience, especially the white matter balance;
• the ability to manage long documents, whether by putting together many small documents (eg Scrivener, yWriter) or working in a single long document with multiple sections (eg Word);
• plus word count and other feedback about the output.

Many editors, especially those markdown derived or inspired, are weak in 2) because of the lack of first line indent and blank lines between paragraphs. Ones that tick all these boxes include Word, Inspire Writer & Ulysses. iAWriter misses different features depending on the OS and has first line indent only in Review mode. Tangent is pretty good but lacks the ability to manage longform (and I haven’t personally tested the first line indent CSS); Upnote isn’t quite as nice, can’t show white matter balance, but has quite nice document feedback and can manage longform; Typora is nice, can (to an extent) manage longform, has first line indent but also blank line between paragraphs (although this ought to be modifiable with CSS), and word count is okay.

otoh, if we look at note and PKM features Word, Inspire, Ulysses, Scrivener, Typora all fail (Word sort of passes if you include OneNote to make a dyad). Tangent and Upnote pass. For my limited usage, Upnote works well on Android (and it includes a Quick Action widget for new notes). Images are an issue for both (Tangent link only, Upnote limits quality). Both are comfortable for writing notes. Tangent better for following a thread, Upnote better for web clips. Workflowy can do notes and PKM but remains primarily an outliner (which automatically gives longform); its big advantage/disadvantage for writing is that it is block based (which can help for working out structures, but hinders seeing the document as a whole) and that it has an alternate kanban view. All work with tasks: probably WF>Upnote>Tangent. Writers for print/publish using a notes app such as these for their writing will typically export into Word for the review and editing passes and sending to editors or publishers.

There are many notes/PKM apps. The editors are generally adequate (occasionally some delay in keyboard response) but tend to the generic. They compete on their other features, not the editors. Upnote’s editor is better than most of them. I find Tangent better for reflective writing in depth, but Upnote feels better for notey notes - even quite long ones: there are many little features (eg open a note in new window + keep on top button, for taking notes when browsing or using another app).

I'd just add that this

the Roamlike feature where bullets can transform into text blocks

-Dormouse (February 29, 2024, 06:37 PM)

is pretty well the perfect design for a zettelkasten as used by Luhmann. Every note has a parent. There is no distraction from bullets. Links are possible.
Purely relying on wikilinks is a non-reflective semi-automation that dissipates the pondering and sorting that made his method productive.
A mindmap view of the outline/cards might enhance it but his use of the system was essentially conceptual and verbal, not visual.

[Dormouse]

I'm afraid this is a very long post. It seemed worth giving enough details for anyone else to be able to follow what I'm currently doing; it does assume some knowledge of outliners, Workflowy, zettelkasten and Luhmann.

I haven't done much with zettelkasten in the past - my usual need is for longer notes - but I have started one with Workflowy, and thought I'd explain it here.

• The first point I need to make is that, despite "Smart Notes", Luhmann's zettelkasten is not a system designed for students - at least not until they are following their own streams of thought; Luhmann was always a researcher who published articles and books. But, if the phrase honing stage is ignored, it is a perfectly applicable system for anyone who is following their own streams of thought whether that be RPG, making bookcases or tracking health. It ought to help develop expertise in anything.
• Second point is that it is a high effort system. Part of the productivity gain is from the repeated pondering when trying to locate the best place for a new zettel. The rest of the gain comes from the structure enabling brick to be placed on brick until a building emerges.
• The third is that Luhmann's practice (aka "the rules") does matter.

• Zettels have to be placed with time-consuming care in a sequence. Some may be new starters (for different subjects), but they need at least the same amount of thought before that decision.
• Zettels have to be brief and to the point: they're not a string of sequential thoughts - if they're worth it, sequential thoughts need to be sequential zettels. This is hard and requires discipline. If a thought isn't worth that effort, it should not be put into the zettel. I don't put my frequent long notes into the zettelkasten, but I do write a zettel fo each one, with the the reference. It's worth emphasising that a brief atomic note implies two conditions that have to be met, not just one.

• Workflowy supports this to a degree because it works best when each zettel is a bullet/paragraph.
• I find that, for the purpose of future linking, it is useful to append a time/date stamp to each zettel. My sequence is title (in bold) + time/date, then the note/thought. All in a single mass of text. I have a time/date stamp as my (most used) shortcut in a text expander so that it can be used in any program. I put references and #tags in the bullet note (#tags are used as a form of index entry)
• (Technically, all the content could be put into the note rather than the bullet - and I might do that if Workflowy offered the same viewing options for notes (show, hide, 1st line) as Dynalist - but it has no options, and always shows 1st line only.
• I also find it useful to have an external library/hoard (which is part of the usual zettelkasten system anyway), Items can be highlighted & referenced. Zettels need the essence and not the clutter.
• I'm aware that it's easy to add a zettel to the head of the list in an outliner. It should also be possible in a card index: idk if Luhmann ever did it; I doubt it since he was probably restricted by his numbering scheme, but I do sometimes.
• If I want to see, or play, with the zettelkasten in a mindmap, I do OPML export to Mindomo. And export back again if necessary. Most mindmap programs should be able to do this. (Many might be able to work as the outliner too. I simply prefer to use Workflowy).
• Workflowy doesn't have a wordcount. Which is fine for zettels, but is a pain for anything longer.
• There's also the possibility of using notes or comments to add detail or successive reflections. At some point the comments could be made into zettels of their own.

Luhmann's phases are essentially: read/think - write zettel - refine note language - place in zettel sequence. Every note placement is an opportunity for further thinking, refining language and adding links/references.

The system I am describing has neural pathways through folgezettel outlines/mindmaps, wikilinks and backlinks, tags as well as optional structure notes. Plus search and filters.

There are a number of reasons why systems like the daily notes and wikilinks of Roam and Obsidian don't create a functional zettelkasten.

• They encourage verbosity and lack of focus. (A frequent reflection from Roamans after leaving the cult.)
• (Everything should NOT go into the zettelkasten; the thinking about exclusion is important.)
• There's no targeted review.
• The long folgezettel debate on forum.zettelkasten.de largely compares the use of alphanumeric folgezettel with numeric date/time stamps as links. The latter's review system is based on Structure Notes (aka index notes, or Maps of Content in ObsidianSpeak); but folgezettel placing can take place multiple times a day and cover all areas potentially receiving new notes, whereas Structure Note review will be infrequent and partial (I've seen weekly recommended apparently with an acceptance that most users won't manage it that often). The debate made me think of angels pogoing on an needle: everyone is righteous and no-one changes position.
• No mental effort is used to find the precise place for a zettel/note. Everything relies on links, the automated backlinks and a graph.
• Structure is expected to be self-emergent (ie automated) rather than the consequence of reflection during placement. There's an assumption that note value is demonstrated by its link density.

In use, I find that this system highlights trains of thought rather than individual notes, and that going through it later does sometimes stimulate further thoughts. Not only are thoughts/notes not islands, but they have active (or inactive) trading networks in a way that graphs of wikilinks don't. I therefore use it for all topics where I am interested in the chain developing (and, maybe especially, branching).

If I write a long note, I decide whether I'm interested in a chain, and, if I am, I add a zettel to reference it. I write as many long notes as I did; the type of mental focus used when writing a long note is quite different to working on the zettelkasten. Sometimes I might write the zettel and then the referenced longer note later.

I happily mine old notes, highlights, webclips, articles, books and add a zettel to reference them when it seems right. I never directly add an old note to the zettelkasten.

Everything is written, described or summarised in my own words. When I don't like my words or phrasing, I have never been able to stop myself working on the language whenever I read something I've written.

[tomos]

It's worth emphasising that a brief atomic note implies two conditions that have to be met, not just one

-Dormouse (March 06, 2024, 05:00 PM)

Do you list these conditions? Are you referring to the two bullet points, the second of which includes the quoted text?

Can you recommend a book or article explaining the system in more depth?

[Dormouse]

It's worth emphasising that a brief atomic note implies two conditions that have to be met, not just one

-Dormouse (March 06, 2024, 05:00 PM)

Do you list these conditions?

-tomos (March 06, 2024, 09:22 PM)

That it be :

atomic
Andy Matuschak;
If a note has more than one idea you care about, then break it down.
NoteDex explanation
The idea has a long history. Atomicity makes it easier to link because there's (supposed to be) only one idea available to link to.

and brief
Most descriptions of the system include the word brief. Index cards were themselves limiting. But I have seen definitions of brief range from less than A4, less than A5 to no more that 2 or 3 sentences (an index card is actually A6).
The reason I emphasise brief is because these notes need to be scanned very quickly when looking to place a new one. Usually the writer will retain a sense of the richness of the idea without have to dot every i etc.

Are you referring to the two bullet points, the second of which includes the quoted text?

-tomos (March 06, 2024, 09:22 PM)

No, there's only one bullet. Quoted text, tags, links etc go in the note to the bullet - accessed by pressing Shift-Enter rather than Enter. It's fainter and less obtrusive

[Dormouse]

Can you recommend a book or article explaining the system in more depth?

-tomos (March 06, 2024, 09:22 PM)

Oh, how I wish I could!
I can explain why most of the well known books are actively wrong and misleading, in part at least.

This and this aren't  bad summaries, but hardly how to do its. (One poi - Luhmann actually started his second, differently structured, zettelkasten after attending a conference in the US)

There are many reasons why I believe that the published books and articles aren’t great:

• most writers automatically add their own ideas; they’re very opinionated but try to give the impression that they are just describing the original
• most writers started as academic wannabes rather than productive and successful academics (and therefore unable to discriminate what would work from what wouldn’t; let alone what needs to be done to make a system work) and a number have ended as zettelkasten publicisers
• a marked discrepancy between them and Luhmann in terms of self-discipline and life circumstances
• an obsession with improving the system when creating a digital analog
• and with their ideas about zettelkasten being shaped by the programs they used
• Luhmann’s target was writing, he had no need of a memory aid; many of the students are primarily interested in remembering

I’m now very opinionated, but it’s taken me a long time to get there. Many of the many detailed systems I’ve seen described struck me as procrastinatory rather than productive: the notes themselves are the purpose.
My own approach has been shaped most by studying how Luhmann actually worked and reading his cards. And comparing that with myself and the workflows of productive successful academics I know.
But being aware that I’m not the same (I pursue more subjects, I have less self-discipline, I am usually doing things rather than reprocessing what I read).
Like Luhmann, I’m very focused on output. Some of that is writing, but it is also investigating, also doing. Output quality is even more important than quantity. A system that isn’t visibly improving this is not one for me. (One reason I still write longer notes: I can usually write these straight off, remembering citations, rather than having to put them together from short notes. The zettels are for what I don’t know and haven’t yet thought.)
I rejected the wikilink/graph/backlink approach because I could see that it doesn’t do the same thing. It can be useful in itself, but tends to be passive and self-serving. At some point on my journey, I remember someone writing that they had looked at zettelkasten and it was just outlining: they were wrong of course, but also still right. Like everyone who has tried following a digital approach, I’ve been limited by software. Workflowy is well short of ideal, but it will do; for now. And it has analogues for all the features of Luhmann’s system.

What I would say is that you need a clear purpose for using the system. I would suggest that purpose being to do with thinking and doing. With that it is very quick to see whether it is helping or not. But the purpose doesn't have to be academic and doesn't have to involve writing as an output.
And don't eschew longer notes, outside the zettelkasten but being linked into it.

[tomos]

What I would say is that you need a clear purpose for using the system. I would suggest that purpose being to do with thinking and doing. With that it is very quick to see whether it is helping or not. But the purpose doesn't have to be academic and doesn't have to involve writing as an output.
And don't eschew longer notes, outside the zettelkasten but being linked into it.

-Dormouse (March 07, 2024, 08:32 AM)

Many thanks for your answers - and for expanding on the bigger picture 

[superboyac]

glad to see this thread still going strong.

some updates on my usage and software opinions:
I actually use multiple desktop applications in a non-dedicated way, meaning I'm not committed to either, and just open and edit files for no particular reason.  Sometimes, just to open one project in one, and another in something else.  I use obsidian, tangent, vscode mostly.  this is all primarily markdown stuff.  For catch all archival purposes, I put everything in trilium because it is very full featured and has selfhosting option.  Now recently, trilium developer said he will only to minor maintenance releases, no more adding major features, but still plans to maintain it indefinitely.

For work purposes when i need to collaborate with less techy people, i've started using Notion.

For static generated sites, I first started using emanote, but then moved to Docusaurus.  I think Docusaurus is beautiful.

I haven't gotten good at atomicity type writing yet, but do plan on going more in that direction as it will help in putting together longer form writings more easily.

I do not think we need to stick so strictly to the original paper based zettel method with the numbers and stuff because the software and yaml covers that pretty well now, and I found it more of a hindrance at this point.  So i've loosened up on that a lot.

[Dormouse]

I actually use multiple desktop applications ... I use obsidian, tangent, vscode mostly.  this is all primarily markdown stuff.  For catch all archival purposes, I put everything in trilium

For work purposes when i need to collaborate with less techy people, i've started using Notion.

For static generated sites, I first started using emanote, but then moved to Docusaurus.  I think Docusaurus is beautiful.

-superboyac (March 07, 2024, 06:55 PM)

Sounds good.
& nice to hear from you! 

I haven't gotten good at atomicity type writing yet, but do plan on going more in that direction as it will help in putting together longer form writings more easily.

-superboyac (March 07, 2024, 06:55 PM)

I'd ask why. You've been going well without it. I don't think it automatically makes it easier to construct longform: it depends on what you're doing; how you do the putting together; how you take the initial, potentially atomic, notes. I'm not absolutely sure Luhmann was 100% atomic - I haven't read all his cards; Beatrice Webb certainly was.

Most of my notes probably are atomic, without being short, but it would certainly be possible to argue that that they could be split. Like a diamond is atomic, but has many facets, at least after being cut.

I do not think we need to stick so strictly to the original paper based zettel method with the numbers and stuff because the software and yaml covers that pretty well now, and I found it more of a hindrance at this point.  So i've loosened up on that a lot.

-superboyac (March 07, 2024, 06:55 PM)

I;m not sure what you mean by the numbers. Luhmann's numbering was primarily to preserve his sequences; I'd argue that sequence is essential. Also it is as a UID, and that's what most zkn programs have by using a date/time stamp. I'm not convinced that they help at all except for linking - and there are other ways of doing that.
But I suspect that the main reason you have loosened up is that you're not using notes as a zettelkasten - and there's no reason why you should because there are many note-taking methodologies and all have their uses.

Wearing an academic hat, I'd typically read 20-50 journals in an hour or two. Naturally this involved a lot of scanning, skimming and skipping, with the occasional check on detail and more rarely a deep dive. I'm quite clear in my own mind that typical obsidian-like systems would produce little value except for the last group. I'm not sure how much I'd want to use a zettelkasten approach for that group, but for all the others it would be essential to create useful notes. The process is like going through a haystack finding individual interesting straws, but the value comes entirely form placing them in sequences, whereas the deep dive value is always mostly in the clump. I'm not sure this was entirely the case for Luhmann - he seems always to have been most interested in what he might write and may have selected and moulded straws entirely on that basis. oc that's just nuance.

And having got a system that works to do it, I can see that it can be applied to anything where building chains is the key process. The plural being key - if you are building one chain your needs are quite different from working simultaneously on 1000 without a blueprint and with the need to do crosslinks from time to time.

I think that one of the problems with zettelkasten discussions is that the focus is always on the notes, and there's only som much anyone can say about that without adding lots of ideas of their own. There's very little discussion about the decisions involved in chain-making, and oc it's irrelevant anyway if your system doesn't make chains.

[Dormouse]

I also read a post on the Workflowy Slack from user Frank G - “I have been using Msft Word for Mac  (Windows before) for as long as I can remember. I have also played with Craft, Ulysses , Scrivener, Speare, Author , Typora , all excellent alternatives. Today WF finally ate them all up too for my long form docs . The blank page with a few basic formatting choices plus WF’s speed (once opened) , simplicity, and flexibility, has made WF my go to choice for long form doc drafts . I will still need to export to Word (or Craft)  for final formatting and PDF conversion, but 95% of my time I will be with WF .”

Essentially this refers to the Roamlike feature where bullets can transform into text blocks. Logsec has had this for some time too.
It struck me that it might be worth comparing the editors in (some of) the apps that I use, what makes them good and how Upnote compares.

-Dormouse (February 29, 2024, 06:37 PM)

I did a short experiment using Workflowy like this - I thought it might be easier if I'm already using it for short zettelkasten notes. Being able to move blocks around is certainly an advantage in some notes/articles where there's a bit of brainstorming and of puzzling through to a, hopefully, coherent outcome. But found I hated it.

A bullet always showed on any section where the mouse was hovering.
And, worse, all the bullets that potentially go lower in the hierarchy remain visible. Can be solved with hoisting and folding etc, but not ideal.
Neither Upnote nor markdown editors help here because they don't allow blocks to be dragged. But OneNote is fine. and easy to put a link in Workflowy, and will also export to .md.

From a writing pov, what Workflowy is good at is brainstorming/organising/constructing using bullets as headings and notes as text. Options to view as bullets, kanban or cards. Exports cleanly to Mindomo, which then exports cleanly to Word. A good workflow once I switched to Word.

Upnote is fine, but has nothing that improves this workflow. It exports to markdown and HTML, but that's not quite as good as a direct export to docx (for me). Longform note writing is okay, but not as nice as Tangent. Its big advantage is mobile. And decent webclips for those who don't have other established workflows for them.

[Dormouse]

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

-Dormouse (November 16, 2023, 07:01 PM)

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