PS: I should clarify that I misspoke when I mention the appeal of fulltext search and instead meant to refer to the appeal of the entirety of the note being self-contained in the text as opposed to other fields.
On Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 10:20:39 PM UTC+2, Saq Imtiaz wrote: > > Hi Bimlas, > > Just a quick note to say that I quite enjoy reading your thoughts on this. > As someone who doesn't really take notes, I don't have much of substance to > add. However if I were taking extensive notes the idea of an approach that > relied on full text search or links rather than fields/tags would quite > appeal to me. > > Oh, I couldn't get your link about the weakness of full text search to > load for me but this works: > > https://tefkos.comminfo.rutgers.edu/Courses/e530/Readings/Beal%202008%20full%20text%20searching.pdf > > Cheers, > Saq > > On Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 8:39:20 PM UTC+2, bimlas wrote: >> >> I’ve been busy with these topics lately and as I look at, this topic is >> becoming more and more interesting for many, so I’m opening a topic where >> we can talk about these. Although this is the TiddlyWiki group, keep in >> mind that Zettelkasten was originally implemented on paper, so the topic of >> conversation is an implementation that can be implemented anywhere, >> regardless of software. >> >> The purposes of Zettelkasten and similar knowledgebases are: >> >> - Easily recall your long-forgotten thoughts >> - Clarify your knowledge of a particular topic >> - To notice contradictions and shortcomings during the dialogue with >> the Notes >> - Create new ideas from your existing knowledge >> >> Related topics: >> >> - https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/Re11x96t-qI >> - https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/pBVtEa5CVYI >> >> I think *TiddlyWiki empty edition is exactly the software you need for a >> Zettelkasten*-type note collection: >> >> - Displays "physically" separate notes that we can handle as if they >> were made of paper: you can leave all of them on "the desk" that you want >> to manage right now and you can put the rest in "the drawer" >> - It basically works by not support for renaming tiddlers, which fits >> the Zettelkasten mindset (permanent titles) >> - Backlinks can be easily displayed in the tiddler info bar >> - It does not include table of contents, which may be due to >> link-based navigation >> - Tags are basically only used for grouping (if ToC-type usage is >> ignored) >> - The selected text can be extracted into a separate tiddler and >> replaced with a link (refactoring of notes) >> >> *The main principles of the "second brain"* kind of knowledgebase in my >> opinion are: >> >> - Write notes about everything to make sure that thoughts and >> experiences are not lost, in addition, the wording helps to understand >> the >> topic >> - Add a unique ID to your notes so you can clearly identify them even >> with a text search (so you get a list of backlinks) >> - There should be only one well-defined idea on a note >> - Because of link-based navigation, use links instead of text search >> to look for a topic >> >> *Wording helps with understanding*, thus instead of copying someone’s >> writing, opinion, solution, describe it in your own words, because only >> then will you become aware of what you actually understood while you have >> to articulate, “have to say back”. >> >> If you just copy, you gather the information without actually >> interpreting it, but while writing the text, you need to interpret your >> thoughts so that you can put them on paper in a meaningful way. This will >> shed light on the dark spots, points you don’t really understand yet, and >> it will encourage you to gather more information on that topic (even during >> a dialogue with your own notes), so it will lead to real understanding. It >> will become your habit that instead of scanning and reviewing the text >> quickly, you will actually start reading the text, interpreting what is >> described, so your reading efficiency will also improve. >> >> It is necessary to use IDs in paper form to identify the notes because >> you have no other option. In digital form, *each of your notes actually >> has a unique ID* (path, in-database ID, URL), but if you use this, you >> will depend on the implementation (vendor lock-in): if you want to migrate >> to another system where links are marked differently (e.g. the title >> identifies the note instead of a generated ID), it will be difficult to >> migrate (if it can be solved at all). Therefore, it is worth using a >> notation system that works in all circumstances (even with a simple text >> search), e.g. the form "2020-09-19_20-24". There is no line break in the >> unique ID (which would make it difficult to find with a text search), it >> does not depend on character encoding (so it even works in filenames, it >> does not need to be modified in URLs because it does not contain accented >> letters), so it is a universal solution. >> >> However, since this name is not verbose, it is a good idea to display the >> title of the note along with its ID. It is a software-dependent solution, >> but the best solution is, for example, if the note can be identified by an >> ID, but we also display the title in the text in the search results. >> >> *A note should be on a signle topic* and be as short as possible; if >> it’s already too long, it probably includes more topics. >> >> When you put headlines in a note, it is a clear indication that the note >> is about multiple topics (e.g., a Mammal note has a Dog and Cat headline). >> Put these paragraphs in a separate note and just place a link in their >> original location (note refactoring) so that if you use text search, you're >> sure to find what you're looking for - if the text you're looking for were >> under a headline within a note, you wouldn't find it in the search results >> (e.g. you would search for the word "dobberman" and only Mammals would >> appear in the results, you probably wouldn’t consider it, but you would >> already notice the title Dog). >> >> Creating *connection between notes requires nothing but links and >> backlinks* (see details >> <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/Re11x96t-qI/m/GYuMKHx0AQAJ>) >> because they can be used to implement tags (details >> <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/Re11x96t-qI/m/9f9LL5GRGAAJ>), >> fields (details >> <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/Re11x96t-qI/m/WoqDEuJzGQAJ>), >> and table of contents (details >> <https://zettelkasten.de/posts/three-layers-structure-zettelkasten/#middle-layer-structure-notes>). >> It >> follows that when using a wiki-like annotation method, we can search for a >> topic by following links instead of text search, because we can find more >> accurate results that we think are as opposed to having to search a list of >> notes that contain those words (*must to read details >> <https://tefkos.comminfo.rutgers.edu/Courses/e530/Readings/Beal+2008+full+text+searching.pdf> >> about >> the weakness of full text search*). >> >> *Backlinks are only useful if they show really relevant content*. For >> example, on Wikipedia, the list of backlinks >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiki> to Wiki >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki> page contains a bunch of unrelated >> information: >> >> - The Aeronautics page mentions "Wiki" in the footnote >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeronautics#Research> in connection >> with a link >> - Batman also mentions it in the footnote >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#External_links> >> - I could list, but this is the case in most places >> >> So I think we need to choose when to refer to a word and when not. We >> need to stick to the Zettelkasten principles to first describe what we >> want, but don’t place links in it until we’re completely done with the >> note: we visit the related notes and only link to the really relevant >> places. For example, if I write a note about squirrels, it would not be >> worthwhile to link from that note to the note about mammals itself, but >> only to the note that collects rodents. While this is more time consuming >> than linking to key words on an ad-hoc basis, a list of backlinks will be >> really useful if you don’t have to sort between them because they are all >> really closely related to that particular note. >> >> One of *the advantages of this kind of note-taking*, for example, is >> that it took me about 15 minutes to write it all down. In fact, all I had >> to do was translate my previously written and thought-out notes into >> English and make small changes to it. >> >> *See https://zettelkasten.de/posts/getting-started/ >> <https://zettelkasten.de/posts/getting-started/> for more information.* >> >> I ask everyone who is also interested in the topic to join the >> conversation. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1e5b9be9-091c-40ad-b8eb-ce4c7cbb7d2bo%40googlegroups.com.
