I think we’re pretty well aligned here. The “tags won’t ever be a note” insight was a bit of a game changer for me.

What do u mean by "all remaining uses"?

​@@busimofrom my understanding, all remaining uses is whatever hasn't been mentioned. Some examples I can give as a person who manages 3 small companies, while learning to code, teach martial arts and jot down my finacial income... When I speak to friend who has knowledge in the medical field, I take down notes when he talks about what is in his field, such as a history of all the ways people kill or relieve pain. I title it as "Pain Relief from a doctor's study". As time progress, I'm making notes about martial arts and how a fighter trains to withstand pain without using drugs. So I link this new note to the old note about pain relief. It's from a different folder, but it has a small relation that has small links. This is how I'm able to memorize and remember things in detail, by linking things together.

​@@chrisjwilsoncan you explain that quote to me i cant comprehend 😢

@@xemtuvi-nhiettinh-az Sure (sorry for the confusion). What I mean is a tag is best when you never want to create a note for it. So for example, a status like "to edit" is great! It's unlikely you want a note like that. But something like "Writing tip" might not be the best idea because you might want to make a note with all the writing tips you've heard. At the same time, you can start with a tag and then make a note later if you change your mind. I hope that helps.

This is a great tip. I am going to start implementing this in my vault.

太有创意了。 空集。 认知过程就是从未知到不确定，从不确定到确定。 赞！

I'm so glad you found it helpful.

Glad you found it useful.

Bro!

I'm so glad you found it useful and I think you are absolutely right: this tool is subjective. You can use it in a totally different way to me and maybe you want to use mostly links, fine. Or maybe you want to only use tags, also fine. I think there are some principles that can make one better for certain functions than another, but that doesn't mean you have to go down that root. I suspect that's also why you've found the learning curve high... I wonder what the simplest first system for a total beginner could be which they could then adapt into any other system they wanted... I'll have a think and see if I can come up with something.

@@chrisjwilson If you manage to come up with a simple system for total beginners to take notes very simply, with high adaptability when they'll figure out their preferred organization style, you'd solve a big problem in this niche I think. I have a few friends who also know of Obsidian and have shared the same struggles, and I have yet to find a resource online addressing this issue once and for all. Most KZfaqrs show their particular folder or linking style, but it's hard to find someone who says "If you're like this, then you should probably start with this system". I guess that's the cost of high personalization of the tool: we get easily confused in the beginning, but once we get the hang of it, we can unlock more of its power.

Happy to help!

I have to admit that I went 100% links for a while but found it cumbersome and realised my error. At the same time, I’ve also tried to over organize with folders. Getting the balance right is certainly tricky but I’m definitely with you. You shouldn’t restrict yourself to just links.

Interesting rule, why did you set it?

Glad it was helpful!

Glad it was helpful for you. Since I made this video I've realised that tags can be EVEN more useful if you use dataview or if you want to filter your graph view by certain sets of data so you don't just see your whole graph but only your book notes or notes on a certain topic etc.

@@chrisjwilson I’m just getting into Zettelkasten/BASB and figuring out how I want to do it, and the general methodology. But, I have a history of using database search operators since I was a kid in the 80s to find things, and that’s where I think tags come in most usefully: not just a status as listed in this old video, but also an easy handle for searching categories of thoughts loosely held, made more powerful via the search operators, and nesting. I’ve not fully defined my intended strategy yet. Part of Building A Second Brain talks about using folders, in PARA definition, which stands for Projects, Areas of Responsibility Reference and Archive. Folders are assumed as the operative model as I’ve heard/read in the book. But, as I see it, for many of the things, things are going great if there is a mixing between status of time/usage, of which the emphasis in the PARA is how quickly are you going to use it, and as I see it, that’s… just a little too strict. The reality is in my profession (software development) reuse and perhaps you can call it plagiarism isn’t merely encouraged, if you don’t do it, that’s nuts! In practice, when writing code, ideally you’ll create something you can readily, and that’s with smaller parts: do you associate each reusable thing with a single project all by itself, or do you cross-link, or what? So in that case, using hard folders seems a little too static in nature, but you do want to know quickly how/where/why something is in use. My thoughts are perhaps a project folder would have a hub note that links to all the things it depends on, and the broken down steps for implementation scheduling. But, the ideas/code it depends on (libraries) may exist in-use in other projects. Each bit of useful possible library, you’d want to tag, and nested tags can be of great value here. Perhaps the original creation lives in a particular project it is a part of: #libraryarea/project/projectname where libraryarea is replaced by what it does (I/O, algorithms, whatever) project says it’s used in projects, and as you use them, you add a new nested tag with projectname, so if you query via tags, search for all libraryarea/project and see the deepest level tag as indicating where it is used: if it exists in multiple projects, you have a nice list right there. I’m thinking keep only as few specific things for a project in a project folder as defines the scope of the project, and have as few things not directly part of the project and only the project actually point to any of the notes in the project folder. As such, libraries as shown above that are intended for possible reuse always exist themselves in the Areas of Responsibility or in Resources. But, I don’t think in most cases, these need to be separate folders: just #area/topic notes or #resource. After all, the point of a second brain is to offload our first brain: why make it too rigid, and force it to need note upkeep if you move them around? For people you know or resources such as businesses you use, I must agree, that makes more sense to put in separate folders. My objective is to make a system with as little friction as feasible, that is resilient to forgetfulness to perform steps at ideal times, Towards that end, it makes sense to create a MOC/hub note for each of the areas, as well as creating a master taxonomy of tags used in a single note. I see links best used for all the higher-level ideas in the areas, and back links to notes that augment those notes they point to, like this: Cats -moc Siamese cats -pointed to by the Cats moc Quirks of siamese cats -points back to siamese cats note Judgements about siamese cats- points back to siamese cats note Deeper assessments about them, or controversies- points back to judgments… The objective here with structuring it this way (which I believe the original zettelkasten method did, to a large degree) is to create small atomic notes that once distilled, never need to be modified, but refined, or, as I think it makes more sense to refer to them, as augmenting or augmentation notes. It’s the power of the augmentation at random times in the future (where those notes themselves may point to other areas the original area note did not, or use tags for loose status of “I think this is an area to consider may be connected”) without modifying the original notes that imbues the structure at the time you create it with the power to clarify the intent of the thought process. Each augmentation note is just a further refinement of what it augments, and it augmenting notes can augment other augmenting notes. Note that via keeping atomic notes that are only written once (except… maybe, for tags) this improves stability of using transclusion, since that depends on text not changing in order for it to be found and correctly identified. So, done properly, you could even use augmentation notes to add to structures of even MOCs with the utilization of queries that use back links and collates the results. Does this make sense to others to think of it this way?

Thank you for the kind words and I’m glad you’ve found it useful. Feel free to send me a private message if you have any questions or you’re wondering how to do something. I’d love to see your system when you’ve got it going!

Hummm I’m wondering what type of notes you are adding to this folder, or are you saving articles directly? If it was me, I’d have a tag for the topic I was learning and link to the author / site (you might only want the author). I’d try to trim each article into my own note rather than just have the article. So let’s say i read an article with ten writing tips, I’d want to turn each writing tip into a note (written in my own words, maybe with a before/after example) and then link that note to the original note (as a source of inspiration and reference) and any other areas where it might apply (for example public speaking, other speakers who offer similar advice etc). It depends a lot on what type of notes you are saving though.

Appreciate it and glad you found it useful.

Thanks for the kind words! I’m glad it helped.

Would I be correct in guessing that you don’t use navigation links in your vault? Your not travelling via a hub note or moc through your PKM but searching?

@@chrisjwilson that's a very good question. Like Danny, I believe, I struggle with atomic notes. As a student of social sciences I keep my notes rather long to give them that important contextual narrative and I still organise them in folders (two hierarchy levels) according to the modules, so that I can see immediately which topics were covered in that module. And yes, I search through my notes. But I can see the point that LYT isn't really happening for me this way. It's quite fascinating to realise how categorical my thinking has become over dozens of years.

IMO Links for connections and hierarchy - tags for status, attributes, features or role (e.g. proxy, load balancer, database, master, slave, storage etc.).

No problem

Good question and clarification. It’s worth noting that I don’t use day notes like some people, especially those following the sort of Roam system (as I understand it). But what I’m really referring to is where the files are actually kept. I use my notes folder in order since I last accessed them (as those are the most likely that I will edit) and I don’t want my day notes / people notes there. So I have separate folders for those categories of notes so I don't bump into them when I don't want to. I actually am kind of jealous of the approach to day notes you use and have tried it in the past but it never really stuck for me (I might try it again though.). So I don't think it's wrong at all and there are different approaches for different people. Hope that helps. Let me know if i was unclear.

Thanks, I think I still have the video file so I can check what I did wrong. I don't know if you've seen any of my other videos but if you have, do you know if this is an exception or the general trend? Sound has been the area where I've had the most issues but really want to get it right as I know it's important.

While I understand your point, I would argue that should be done in addition rather than instead of. An example would have helped clarify the point, but simply looking at my exact links and tags may not be useful for someone who follows a different approach. (Sidenote: the slides are actually presented from obsidian)

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you found it useful!

I'd say, don't move away from folders! Start using links alongside folders and see what works for you. Maybe you use more folders than other PKM people, that's fine. Maybe you drop them completely eventually, that's fine too. You don't have to go all in straight away (or ever!)

That’s an interesting challenge and solution. I’d love an example of notes with the same name and how they are different in content (if you are able to supply that). I have faced some similar challenges for literature notes and usually add a code to the start of the note to help distinguish it from others that may or may not be similar (i.e. intro to NT [note name] ). I wonder if you could use a code at the front too but then set text in the link as without the code (using | after the link name in your square brackets in obsidian) in your note. Maybe that’s not appropriate in your situation though. Thank you for sharing a different perspective and challenge, it really helps me understand different people’s needs.

@@chrisjwilson I track lakes i have fished in. A lot of those lakes have the same name. The folders is based on location so there is not often i got two with the same name in the same folder. I often want to read my notes when i am at the lake. The links make it easy to navigate on my phone. It is 30 years of data converted from loose notes on my HD and written in notebooks...

I have some notes for people I meet with regularly with information I should remember. Plus I have some notes on authors or important thinkers. It helps me track notes I have on them or their theories.

@@chrisjwilson Ah cool, thank you for explaining :)

No problem at all. I hope it gives you some ideas for your own system.

In obsidian, you can just move files in to the folder on your computer that contains your obsidian vault. You don't need to be able to do copy the content, just the files.

​@@chrisjwilson thanks for responding, though I tried that, and all that comes up are the folder titles, but none of the actual RTf files....I even went so far as to rename them from .rtf to .md and still, nothing shows up in Obsidian.....I've also tried to open an rtf file with "select obsidian", and it brings me to the new vault page, and tried every option, but to no avail.....seems copy/paste is the only way :/

Sorry for the delay. I got distracted by life and trying to check things out. My suspicion is that although you renamed the RTF files, it hasn’t changed the file type. I’m sure there are some simple web apps that can mass convert files. Have you managed to solve it yet? If not then I’ll investigate more. I’d love to know your solution.

@@chrisjwilson I'm almost finished with copy/pasting manually...thank you for your feedback.

Could you expand upon what you mean by “reusing notes is the least authentic way of using the later”. Also you seam to imply that you can’t use two links (such as one for obedience and one for charity) or have I misunderstood you there.

@@chrisjwilson just mentioned it in passing. Thank you for listening though.

No problem at all. I'm currently using the WEB translation without the deuterocanonical books. You could easily generate a catholic version using the biblegateway to obsidian script from Joschua (github.com/selfire1/BibleGateway-to-Obsidian). If, however, you struggle with that, contact me and I'll generate a version for you. (I'm really glad it helped! I felt confused over how I should approach these tools. I still wonder if I'll completely change my approach in the future but I trust that even if I do, going through my old notes and reorganising them will be rewarding in itself).

@@chrisjwilson oh I didn't in know that Joschua had that version, thanks mate.

A hub note is another name for a MOC or Index note, although there may be some minor differences between each term. Basically, it's a note that you use to link to other notes so it acts as a hub. This could be for a topic, or to catalog the contents of a course. Does that help? Let me know if that's unclear or if you see some issues with the description.

@@chrisjwilson Perhaps it would be more communicative not to make up multiple names for the same concept, or any names at all. A description always serves better than a made up AND unexplained name or worse, acronym.

Noted.