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.
replyOut 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.
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.
reply