Hacker News Reader

> I ended up spending a lot of time thinking about the structure instead of actually thinking about the content.

This is why wikis, which I originally thought were just the best things ever, seem to become useless over time.

The Mac application Quiver [1] introduced me to the idea of categories, which can contain one layer of sub-category, and either categories or sub-categories can contain articles, which contain text. A really simple tree.

This extremely simple structure is just enough to (A) contain everything I've thrown at it and (B) know where to look for something. And, you can make links from one article to another for when a cross-reference is good to have (but I do it very rarely).

I now use Obsidian [2] which is more modern, not Mac only, as well as being much simpler to use than Quiver, using simple markdown.

[1] https://happenapps.com

[2] https://obsidian.md

Wdym useless over time? You don't need to think about structuring a wiki.

I've found that if you don't have structure, then you're reliant on plain search terms. As you have more and more leafs, without a tree, your searches will match more and more leafs, to the point where you'll have difficultly finding conceptually related but not textually related concepts. If you're using tags or links, I would claim those are structure. I've often found I have to go back and add tags/links to pages so I can find them in the search results.

I think structureless is not possible, since some form of structure will grow, with lumps. I think there's some happy in between, with some light structure in place.

Perhaps "useless" is the wrong term -- perhaps just "wildly inconsistent" would be better (which winds up being pretty much useless, if you can't find anything).

nomel wrote:

> I think structureless is not possible, since some form of structure will grow, with lumps.

This really nails it. There will be some kinds of structures (note the plurals), particularly if more than one person is involved, since you just think... differently at different times. A minimal structure like Quiver/Obsidian just takes all those silly decisions away that wind up lumping your data into a difficult-to-access wad.

I actually stopped using Obsidian a few months ago. I feel like these knowledge collection/note taking applications over complicate everything. I wasn't happy with the search feature in Obsidian specifically and the fact that it forces you to add their own application specific characters/flavor to your markdown. [0]

I thought about it and my minimum requirements for a knowledge graph tool are:

1. Edit files in vanilla Markdown (no application specific cruft)

2. Be able to search content easily (ideally via grep)

3. Add 1:1 or 1:many links between files (direct links vs. tags, ideally using requirement 2 to implement this)

And the simplest solution for me was:

1. A single level directory of md files (no folders!)

2. Vim + Telescope [1]

3. A small set of guidelines [2] to define searchable patterns for linking files/nodes

I also wrote a little md renderer (seen in link 2) that adds the features I wanted for exploring my notes/second brain in a browser that picks up on the patterns in the guidelines. Gotta get a grep search on that thing and it'll be golden, but I apologize I'm rambling at this point.

Never been happier. I just use Working Copy to jot notes on mobile when I'm not at my computer.

[0] https://help.obsidian.md/How+to/Internal+link

[1] https://github.com/nvim-telescope/telescope.nvim

[2] https://notes.zacholland.net/file/index.md

Have a look at the German software 'The Archive' https://zettelkasten.de/the-archive , this might be what you are looking for. It is not overloaded with fancy features and is text/markdown based. Enables you to focus on your actual notes and ideas and how to connect and inter-act with them, instead of getting lost in fancy diagrams.

Their user forum is in English and is THE best ressource regarding all things Zettelkasten. https://forum.zettelkasten.de Niklas Luhmann, the inventor of the Zettelkasten system, was German, after all :)

I tried out The Archive, definitely a good option! My guidelines are very similar to theirs but to be honest I think I value the speed and power of my Vim setup too much to use any other text editor... so maybe the setup I described above is only relevant to people who want to also edit notes in their preferred editor lol

Although, I do think I have a small gripe with the Zettelkestan method. I don't see the point in having a large collection of small notes with unique identifiers. If I have a random thought, I will write it in a physical notebook accepting it's mortality. If I want to immortalize it, I flesh out the thought and transfer it either to it's own file, or add the small bit of info to a relevant file.

Even if I did want to jot down every small thought or idea of mine in my notes directory, the manageability difference between a single long file (for say all my small thoughts) vs. a ton of small files seems marginal to me. I do personally prefer the former though.

When your main method for searching relies on powerful content scanning (grep) and connections (tags/direct links) it doesn't really matter where the content lives. If the search is powerful and the connections are strong, everything is easily discoverable.

Vanilla markdown I've realized isn't what I want. What I want is Markdown's editing simplicity, but I do want WYSIWYG for inserting pictures (drag / drop, copy+paste), resizing them, and I do want inline-rendering of more complicated things like graphviz and plantuml.

Wow, no directories. That kind of blows my mind. I just really appreciate some kind of high-level "directory" (for lack of a better word) rather than trying to remember some random tag to help me find something.

Reminds me (sorry, I'm a dinosaur) of the WAIS [0] days -- I had a friend who showed me some cool sites accessible through WAIS. When I asked them if there was some kind of directory to find stuff, he looked slightly annoyed and said, "You could build one, I guess." The WwW came along shortly thereafter, with lots of directories of sites, and yeah, most folks have never even heard of WAIS :-)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_information_server

It works! But only when paired with fuzzy search for file names and grep searching file contents. I do sometimes like to just roam around my files for fun though and do remember specific file names, so naming is still important for me!

Also the tags are very deliberate.

I started using OneNote this year. I create a weekly "Note" where I throw all my notes in during a week. This includes a weekly ToDo checklist, a note section per meeting, and then random thoughts, code/log snippits, or whatever else I need.

It's not perfect, but it's the best solution I've found so far. I've tried every note taking method out there and I always fall off after a few months. I think this is working for me because it has the quality of a general wiki, but I start fresh every week, so I don't have to worry about carrying over or linking "knowledge" for the most part.

I go back and forth between doing this on a daily or weekly cadence, but it's also the only thing I've found to keep being useful over time. I always get a wild hair to try and write Markdown or something but really I just end up writing text and it's fine. The most meta I ever get is adding additional keywords for me to search later.

Most of note taking happens at work. I tried local plain text notes, then stuck with confluence for some time. Confluence is slow and resists a lot.

OneNote is what I have end up with for now. Every page in one note is like a whiteboard where you can put anything anywhere. I sometimes store screenshots of code snippets. Sometimes even full files. Use it for small temporary todo lists. OneNote is a great place for putting down random info as quickly as possible.

Not worrying about how and where to put your thoughts down is very very important. Thoughts get lost in the process otherwise.

> Not worrying about how and where to put your thoughts down is very very important. Thoughts get lost in the process otherwise.

Yes, strong agree

I am not going anywhere without my reMarkable 2. This is just crazy convenient tool for dumping thoughts and trying ideas. E.g. when I design something. I'd draw abstract boxes and other shapes, then add a new layer, make connections, another layer some notes. You can freely move things around or erase with a pen. I think my productivity gone up like 10x. I especially like the fact that I can just leave my laptop, sit somewhere quiet and just write and draw without distractions.

Do you use the handwriting to text service?

I think one of the problems is that people want to "de duplicate" knowledge and have such solutions with "DRY - don't repeat yourself".

What is my idea - I have VS Code and just write down things with tags using # - then even if I have something in two places on the same topic I don't mind. When I see it in search I will recall which one I need.

Disk space for text files is nowadays basically infinite :)

The problem is that "taking notes" means different things in different contexts.

For an academic sociologist, building a zettelkasten is a step in the process of writing academic publications; for me an academic in Earth Science, taking notes is documenting the software my team writes, documenting the scientific methods we use; keeping track of tasks and writing meeting notes; for a programmer, taking notes is storing examples of code, ideas, etc.

That's why there is no one way to taking notes. There will almost be as many note-taking tools as people using them!

Let's go one step further ...

One person can have multiple systems of note taking. Just daily notes that you need to write down to keep some thoughts around. Other system might be for writing a book that needs to be really structured.

I think problem is that a lot of people think that they need to have "one master system" to rule them all.

But what is my idea - that if you have some daily note that you want to include in your book, you copy that piece to your "book notes" from your "daily notes" and have 2 copies in different contexts.

Sometimes I have that grand idea that I would like to wrap my mind around entirety of my life ... it is just not possible and CONTEXT is the king.

I think the missing things for most people revisiting notes is they record the what but rarely the why. The why makes the what easy to back into but we tend to focus on the destination what too much. ymmv

What I've found myself doing is taking a lot of notes, then when the moment arrives to organize them, I just delete them.

I end up having to rebuild my (admittedly tiny) "second brain" from scratch from time to time, but at least I end up with stuff that's relevant now-ish, without having to bear the cost of a lot of long-term knowledge inventory.

NOTE: This is not advice, and this approach would probably not work even for me if I was inclined to regret throwing things away.

I would recommend looking into the Zettelkasten ("slip box") system, then ("How to take smart notes" by Sonke Ahrens is a great read).

Particularly to your point (2), the problem I've seen with most systems is they are not simple to maintain. Contrast this with "Getting Things Done", which is practically the simplest productivity system I've ever used that accurately works, where you have only two chores:

1. Write down tasks as they come up 2. Flesh them out later with as little metadata as possible (typically, at most, a project + due date if necessary)

The Zettelkasten mirrors this in a lot of ways. It has the advantage of re-writing your notes in your own words (your point (1)), but it is very simple to maintain. You re-write, make links to other notes in your existing setup, and you're done. Your notes should be as context-less as possible (which causes you to think further), and you should generally be able to relate it to GTD's daily "review" process.

A big point of clarity is the Zettelkasten is against "organization" - everything falls into the box. Ahrens talks in depth about how folders, categories, and even tags can be very limiting - you think about the metadata more than the actual content, which gives us a headache to maintain. A system should be as friction-less as possible if we want to actually use it.

Additionally, he does address your (3) to some extent, but it seems like you've figured out what these thoughts are, and resolved that they probably aren't worth fleshing out further (beyond maybe your proof-of-concept, fail-fast demo). I imagine if they are worthy ideas you probably would elaborate on them further.

--

I've been using it for a while now, and I can personally attest that it's been very helpful, especially as I've progressed into more architectural/design work, and less direct day-to-day coding.

Yes, my notes are just a massive log file. I use it as a scratchpad whenever I do something.

Yes! and suggest "write things down" -> type thoughts in.

Organising: suggest event in {iCal, Outlook}, can search by date.

Other categories: suggest adding names of people to notes. Search (grep) for those extra names.

Suggest scheduling future event {date/time, person} to delegate task.

Suggest fractal recursion of self-sacrifice in Sierpinski Triangle, delegate out half the work, then half again. Say "thank you" to those who accept delegation; thank back to those who suggested ideas to you.

Can parallelise {reading, writing, listening, speaking, typing, singing, doing going} e.g. reading code and singing music. Can double available brainpower.

Thank you judofyr for your bug report; hope this workaround will help!

I'm in the same place. I optimized the note taking experience and now I have loads of notes/links/snippets in Org files but the organizing part (move, link, update) is still painful.

I would love to have a pseudo-smart tool that suggests meaningful actions based on the note content. Like "Move note to project 'learning-kubernetes'", "Tag with 'home-improvement'" or "See similar notes: [...]". That and the ability to do it on my phone would be a killer feature for me.

point 2 is a bit saying the brain2 is its own information system with tech debt and accidental complexity