Comment on Obsidian is now free for work - Obsidian
artificialfish@programming.dev 1 day agoYeah but you learn it and it’s a far more organized approach
I’ve tried logseq for the last 6 months (no commercial license) at work, but while it’s really good for outlining, it’s lack of a tag function is what feels like a critical weakness to me. I realize structurally it’s different in concept. But making everything into bullets doesn’t always suit the task.
I would love Logseq for journalling or writing though.
I actually find the lack of distinction between a tag and a wiki link a breath of fresh air. So many other apps make a meaningless distinction between them and make you choose ahead of time a styleguide for how you plan to use both. Logseq makes a query able style enforced and then you adapt to using it. Very different
Yes, but the syntax and documentation on the queries is obtuse as hell in logseq. Like it is ridiculous how granular you have a to get of you want to return all links within a time period or something. If I need to write SQL to pull notes, I should just use a database, lol.
The nice thing about tags as a distinct entity is it offers the option you can utilize if you choose. It gives you two buckets you can sort into and connect between. And it does make creating “topic groups” easier than manually linking them all to a tag page in logseq, imo.
Conversely, I would massively prefer of Logseq abolished support for hashtags entirely if they are functionally identical to wikilinks. Or combine them so the hashtags auto-convert to wikilinks or vice versa. But supporting hashtags in any manner when they are frankly not a “real” feature is more frustrating. Making topic links in Logseq is harder because of this.
Also, the existence of tag pages themselves is a confusong abberation given the above…
Logseq is a great tool, but very different in terms of what it is best suited to handle. I think I will revisit it for if I do a lot of writing, but for disparate ideas or notation it is good but could be better.
Just because other tools use # in other ways doesn’t mean they aren’t useful the way they are now in Logseq. It’s just a one character shorthand rather than four characters. I find tags as they are in Evernote and Obsidian exceedingly worthless for all but the most strictly organized individuals, not so in Logseq.
A query is helpful when you need it, but rarely needed.
Obsidian dev’s original project Dynalist is an outline based notes app that does have tags. She doesn’t update it anymore but I still rely heavily on it as my second brain.
Interesting. I’ll have to give that one a shot later. Though I’m probably fine with Obsidian.
asap@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think for some brains it just doesn’t click. How do you write a long form document? How would you write documentation? How would you write a blog post?
I tried for a while but I just couldn’t understand the concept of “Everything as an outline.”
artificialfish@programming.dev 1 day ago
Well I think the first thing is just simply that documents aren’t notes, so you wouldn’t write those things in Logseq.
What you are writing in Logseq is a zettlekasten, which is just a personal knowledge graph. And in a knowledge graph, everything needs to relate somehow to everything else, that’s why it has to be an outline.
So things can relate to the journal date they were written on, to their parent and children concepts, and to the links that they contain. Every idea has at least a relationship to the date you wrote it, but hopefully you can link that idea to more than just that relationship.
asap@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Thank you, that’s what I had suspected, so I’m glad I wasn’t doing anything wrong.
The way I like to think is through long form writing and personal documentation, so I guess it’s not a good match for me.