* pinmacs <[email protected]> [2025-12-26 14:07]: > Depends on the case, managing 240k people every month, I think we are not > talking about a tool for you, but for your organization. If you manage this > volume, then it is justified to have a tool like a CRM that satisfies the > organization needs. > > But there are cases of personal use, where you don't want to maintain > another piece of software. It is not just "love for orgmode", it is the most > advanced tool to handle your knowledge in files with advanced functionality.
Calling Org-mode an ‘advanced tool’ is like calling a typewriter ‘next-gen AI’—romantic, but let’s be honest, we’re mostly suffering for love here. > I choose for my core things plaintext files, and I am very happy with the > decision. Ah, ‘plain text files’… sure, if by plain text you mean a labyrinth of brackets, colons, asterisks, and properties that somehow need a PhD to read—truly the most ‘plain’ of texts! > Talking about org contacts. I found a way that scales a lot, at least for > just one average and simple live in earth (at least for me), which is, you > have an entity file with just the metadata, on this kind of files, a new > file is automatically created related to that entity, to fill up with notes > [1]. On that file such as `~/org/notes/contacts/contacts_1065.org' you could > have lots of data related to that contact/entity. That file, right now has > 1121 headings, 12k lines, 331 KB, which compressed with zfs ends up with 181 > KB, and I don't feel lost, on the contrary, I feel I have control on my > data, it is my source of truth. If I work with others, I might use other > tools (for contacts, for tasks), maybe I export some of the data, but I > still maintain my stuff for myself. I can see how having a dedicated file per contact with all related notes gives a lot of control and keeps your personal ‘source of truth’ clean. For a single user, this is definitely maintainable, though 12k lines in one file is already getting pretty heavy—Org can handle it, but search and navigation might start feeling slow. For collaboration or scaling to many users, this could get tricky, but for personal tracking it seems like a solid, flexible system. > And as it is an orgmode file, I can link people to the rest of my files > related to projects, journal, wiki, etc. I have a way to complete with all > contacts, that is slow, but I have a tag that is :active: for the people I > care now. Maintaining relationships in a single Org file is definitely possible and works fine for a manageable number of contacts. The challenge comes as the number grows—files get heavier, navigation and search slow down, and overall maintenance becomes more burdensome. > I did something to have "some entities" that could relate to my orgmode > files, I use an org-item main definition [4], and that "library" > instantiates org-contact (similar somehow to org-contact package, but > adapted to my needs), org-inventory, org-project, org-location (places), > org-doc (written documents), org-media (videos, audios, etc.). The idea is > always the same, you have a file to index all this kind of content you want > to work on [5], and from there, specific files. See if as a proof of > concept. Coming back to org-contacts, it took ~60 lines for that definition, > from a library with ~189 lines, most of the work is already done with > org-link. See it as a proof of concept that the entities relationship could > work. I suggest learning: About Dynamic Knowledge Repositories (DKR): https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/190/163/ Doug Engelbart was a pioneer of human-computer interaction, best known for inventing the mouse and advocating for augmenting human intelligence through technology. His vision of Dynamic Knowledge Repositories was about scalable, structured, and interconnected knowledge systems. Contrast that with some of the purely whimsical Org-mode experiments we see today—while fun and clever, they often reinvent the wheel in a labyrinth of plain-text files, asterisks, and nested headings. Engelbart’s approach aimed to truly amplify human intellect; some Org-mode setups mostly amplify complexity. > I have been sharing all of this recently, but this org entity thing I have > been using since 2023, and from there, it evolved. At the beginning I was > thinking that I would never end adding stuff, but it stabilized, so that > means I am confortable with this, that's why I am sharing my view. Ran a similar setup, connected all the dots… and then realized the dots were just pointing to more work for no reason. > If anyone works or has worked on this concept of org identities (that might > include org-contacts, etc.) I might be interested in trying it out! > > [1] > ** example-contact > :PROPERTIES: > :name: Example Person > :email: [email protected] > :address: ? > :CREATED: [2025-08-29 Fri 11:25] > :CUSTOM_ID: contacts_1065 > :notes: file:~/org/notes/contacts/contacts_1065.org > :END: > > [2] > ** one-org :qirdoc: > :PROPERTIES: > :CREATED: [2024-11-19 Tue 15:16] > :CUSTOM_ID: contacts_969 > :notes: file:~/org/notes/contacts/contacts_969.org > :sname: acme > :name: ACME COOP > :nif: A123456789 > :address: Address 123, Potterville > :postal: 12345 > :municip: City > :provinc: Province > :email: [email protected] > :END: One thought: if the CUSTOM_ID is considered fixed and stable, there’s actually no need to keep a separate notes file for each contact. The file could be generated automatically on demand, which would eliminate a lot of manual maintenance and reduce file clutter. Sharing or collaborating requires either constant exports or merging multiple Org files manually, which is tedious and error-prone. And if metadata is duplicated across the Org headline properties and the notes file, creating a high risk of inconsistency if something changes (email, address, etc.). This setup does not scale well: as the number of contacts grows, you end up with hundreds or thousands of files to manage, search, backup, and maintain manually. > [5] So in general, all crazy links I get everyday might be in links > from today in the journal. All crazy links I get from specific > projects might be related just to that project. Interesting approach, but it seems to miss the bigger picture of relationships. People aren’t just links—they relate to multiple documents, can be authors, co-authors, or assigned to tasks (which is critical). Companies and people have relationships, groups of people may share responsibilities, and documents themselves can reference or depend on other documents. Org-mode links handle simple associations well, but it doesn’t natively capture this many-to-many, multi-role relational structure. Without additional layers or external systems, modeling these real-world relationships becomes cumbersome quickly. > So this is about generic stuff you care about and you think could be > referenced from multiple files, projects, events, etc. so that it is > universal in your life to be there. Trying to make everything universally referenceable sounds neat in theory, but in practice it leads straight to universal disaster—massive files, endless links, and a tangle that’s impossible to maintain. The most beneficial turn in my own work came when I stepped out of that Org-mode labyrinth and started organizing knowledge the way Doug Engelbart envisioned: structured, scalable, and actually amplifying human intelligence instead of burying it in a tangle of links - yet everything remains interconnected. > Hence, does not include all contacts all documents you get every > day, but the files you want to have organized. Even with that > filter, if it gets lots of items, it could continue scaling: you > could archive old stuff that is no longer relevant or generate more > specific subspaces docs-books.org, docs-papers.org, etc. Sure, you can filter, but eventually the files swell, links explode, and keeping it all straight becomes a full-time job. If you think only for yourself, this Org setup can work. But the moment you zoom out—people everywhere, relationships crisscrossing like spaghetti, projects tangled with documents and tasks—you quickly realize Org is like bringing a spoon to a noodle fight. Fun for solo play, impossible for the real interconnected world we live in. -- Jean Louis
