3 ms·

Creating a hierarchy of notes using folders can be counterproductive. It will be easy to classify the majority of notes, but some of them will match multiple ca

Creating a hierarchy of notes using folders can be counterproductive. It will be easy to classify the majority of notes, but some of them will match multiple categories, or even none of them. Unfortunately, those notes are usually the most interesting. Case in point: I have some notes regarding good technical writing, and some notes concerning good Git usage. If I had a hierarchy, the first notes would go under "writing", and the second ones would go under "development". But where would I have filed the notes regarding Git commit messages? I feel like they belong on both categories. Choosing just one of them means ignoring the other. That's why, if you still want to classify some of your tags, I strongly advise to use a tagging system, and to avoid creating note hierarchies. It can be way more simple: I use one folder for my notes, and another one for my "sources" (linear notes on articles, books, talks, etc). Files have unique filenames (guaranteed because a timestamp is added to the name when they are created). And there's no need for structure, because I open the files with Emacs using Projectile, so I can autocomplete the filenames. If I need to search the contents of the files, full text search is also accessible and quick. All note taking programs have these features, and you don't really need much more.

curryst 6y ago
There are note taking systems that enabled that. Obsidian (from here a couple days ago) and Trilium both track links and backlinks, which can let you integrate that to a degree. It creates a web of information, as opposed to a strict hierarchical taxonomy. So you can link across those to hopefully maintain discoverability. I generally dislike labeling systems. My interpretation of a label is too context-dependent and liable to shift over time. I.e. "architecture" could refer to either systems architecture or building architecture. And I frequently don't think that I'll have a conflict until some day I decide I want to learn about Napoleonic architecture for some reason. And then when I separate them, I'll end up forgetting what I called the label (was it systems-architecture? tech-architecture? application-architecture?) and I end up futzing around to figure out what the label was, breaking my flow of thought.
- vvillena 6y ago
  In the book "How to take smart notes" by Sönke Ahrens, there's a lot of thought given on the real value of tags. I'd say the problem you describe happens because you are trying to create a taxonomy using tags. Classifying the notes using tags can feel rewarding in the short term, but it's not useful in the context of a linked notes system. When creating tasks, the main question that is answered is "in which contexts would I like this note to show up?". The answer to this question is completely subjective. If, for instance, you were doing research for game level design, it makes sense for the systems architecture notes to be tagged with "game engine", "achievements", "quick save", or anything else that you will want to look up later on. The Napoleonic architecture notes could be tagged as "level design", "gameplay cues", or "side quests". As you can see, these tags would be different for every person, and that's kind of the point. Two people can read the same content, and take the same note from it, but the intended purpose could still be completely different, and that would show up in the tags.
M5x7wI3CmbEem10 6y ago
that’s why I have tags, I summarize info in multiple places, and I add aliases for sources

curryst 6y ago

There are note taking systems that enabled that. Obsidian (from here a couple days ago) and Trilium both track links and backlinks, which can let you integrate that to a degree. It creates a web of information, as opposed to a strict hierarchical taxonomy. So you can link across those to hopefully maintain discoverability. I generally dislike labeling systems. My interpretation of a label is too context-dependent and liable to shift over time. I.e. "architecture" could refer to either systems architecture or building architecture. And I frequently don't think that I'll have a conflict until some day I decide I want to learn about Napoleonic architecture for some reason. And then when I separate them, I'll end up forgetting what I called the label (was it systems-architecture? tech-architecture? application-architecture?) and I end up futzing around to figure out what the label was, breaking my flow of thought.

vvillena 6y ago
In the book "How to take smart notes" by Sönke Ahrens, there's a lot of thought given on the real value of tags. I'd say the problem you describe happens because you are trying to create a taxonomy using tags. Classifying the notes using tags can feel rewarding in the short term, but it's not useful in the context of a linked notes system. When creating tasks, the main question that is answered is "in which contexts would I like this note to show up?". The answer to this question is completely subjective. If, for instance, you were doing research for game level design, it makes sense for the systems architecture notes to be tagged with "game engine", "achievements", "quick save", or anything else that you will want to look up later on. The Napoleonic architecture notes could be tagged as "level design", "gameplay cues", or "side quests". As you can see, these tags would be different for every person, and that's kind of the point. Two people can read the same content, and take the same note from it, but the intended purpose could still be completely different, and that would show up in the tags.

M5x7wI3CmbEem10 6y ago

that’s why I have tags, I summarize info in multiple places, and I add aliases for sources