undefined

points

[-]

Totally get that — that’s a great PKM goal: not “ship from notes”, but “don’t re-derive everything from scratch next time”.

And yes, Logseq/Obsidian-style wikilinks are really good at building that personal context graph. The thing I’m trying to validate isn’t “everyone should convert notes into tasks”, it’s whether there’s a subset of people who also want help with re-entry when they do decide to work on something: resurfacing the few most relevant past notes/links/emails/posts for the current project, in a way that stays lightweight and doesn’t require changing their PKM.

For your workflow, what’s the ideal re-entry experience when you pick up a topic again:

1. a “brief” that consolidates what you previously learned (with links back), or

2. just fast navigation/recall via links and search (no consolidation), or

3. something else entirely?

Details in my HN profile/bio if you’re curious what I’m validating.

by smeej16 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

At the bottom of each Logseq page, there's a "Linked References" section that just lists every use of that page tag in reverse chronological order. I can collapse any heading if I want. I can review it very quickly and find out what I thought was important last time I was working on that topic. I can also filter by other tags so I can narrow it down to "[[this tag]] and also [[this other tag]]" if my interest is something specific.

Works great for my purposes. Doesn't need any improvement for my use.

by appsoftware2 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Obsidian is similar but without the block structure you have to be very specific about linking notes rather than using parent child relationships.

by item0072 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Yep, that matches my experience. Logseq’s block tree gives you “structure by default” (parent/child context), so you can get away with being a bit looser with explicit linking. In Obsidian, because the unit is the note (not the block), you often have to be more intentional about creating/maintaining the links and structure.

Out of curiosity: do you find Logseq’s block hierarchy alone is enough for re-entry, or do you still rely heavily on consistent wikilink naming/tags to avoid the “I swear I linked this but used a different term” problem?

Details in my HN profile/bio if you want the angle I’m exploring around minimizing organization overhead while improving re-entry.

by appsoftware1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes the block hierarchy is enough for re-entry. There is a natural 'pruning' process where I return to notes and realise I need to rework them to make surfacing the information I need easier. I often adjust titles and aliases (and often find I have two notes with similar names that need 'refactoring' to one - but Logseq makes this easy). If I don't find the note straight away I can usually remember adjacent terms to find it, and then when I do, I tag it with the first terms I searched on (as acceptance of the associations my brain had naturally made). I'll keep an eye on your project. What I do struggle with with Logseq is there isn't an easy means to just dump ideas to organise later, partly because the mobile app is so slow. It really needs two UIs that integrate with the same base format for two different modes of note collection. I disagree with others that taking or 'hoarding' notes is more work than its worth. The benefit of being able to dump info quickly and pick it up again and being able to find it easily is so valuable. Sure some notes get written and never see the light of day again, but then they never consume further time because I just don't work on them, but they are there if I need them. There's no way to know what info will definitely be useful in the future.