Better late than never, as the buffer duffer said. (A duffer is someone who does something enthusiastically, but without talent or real ability; it is often used of golfers who like to play but can't hit the ball straight.) Nothing like a good language discussion! But all this gave me a headache, so I reached for some aspirin. My brand of choice? Bufferin, of course. (So called, because it is coated for those whose stomachs are upset by plain aspirin.)
I did understand right away that "buffer" was being used in the computer sense. Y'all are probably too young to remember (I have shoes that I suspect are older than many of you), but in the old dial-up days, we often had to wait what seemed an eternity while the system was "buffering." So I got it, but I agree it may not be the best term here. (I'm not sure I agree that it is confusing, only that it is perhaps not the best term generally; however, for people who work with the magical electrical whiz-bangs of today, it is not out of line.)
You want a term that suggests a holding-area where ideas go to wait, but not to die. A kind of waiting-room. Or a holding-pen, as for animals like cattle or sheep or pigs awaiting slaughter (maybe not the best image...). Or a ponding-basin, as for allowing water to purify naturally. (I'm both old and old-fashioned, and I prefer to use hyphens, as in the preceding sentences. Many of you will not. Of course, the NativeGermanspeakers will not be shocked by this fundamentally-Germanic structure. And, to be fair to the other great source of English, I used to teach French, and my user-name is Latin; it means "what I think.") Or, for the theatrical among you, a green room, where performers wait to be called on stage.
So what to choose? Some have suggested seedlings (or, more properly, seedbeds: the place where seeds are planted so they will grow into mighty whatevers). That is good, but it is broader than what is wanted, as it applies to any idea/note that has yet to flourish and burgeon into a real, grown-up note, whatever that may be. Here, it is not the maturity of the note, though that may be an issue, but rather the occasion to use it that is delayed. Whence the idea of waiting or holding, which terms like seedling and seedbed lack.
It occurs to me that "idea bank" might be a solution. "Bank" conveys something piled up: think of a river bank, where sediment piles up and contains the flow of the stream; of the bank (like OK, a word that seems to have made into just about every language without changing meaning), where your money piles up (maybe not in your account, but somewhere); or of a fog bank, an accumulation of haze. And, of course, a memory bank, for those who can remember the old days.
I did understand right away that "buffer" was being used in the computer sense.
I think your confusion results from lack of context? The most common way to learn how to use a word is by context, when communicating with other people. Maybe you are used to the use of that word only in a specific context, without really knowing what is going to be buffered and why (i wouldn't, at least, in case of dial-up systems). The purpose of a buffer is not for someone to wait to get a reply, or a bad excuse for something to be slow.
You want a term that suggests a holding-area where ideas go to wait, but not to die. A kind of waiting-room.
A buffer is not just a storage system, like a bank, and it is also not meant to make something wait. A buffer is used to prepare your work to be available in a different environment. For example, instead of going down the floor 10x a day to hand out some documents, you let them pile up on your desk and give them all at the end of the day. Or, on a crossroad the cars are piling up on one side, to pass all at once when the right conditions are met (green light). The purpose of the traffic light is to make traffic faster. Ironically in doing so it also makes the driver wait.
So, i see why buffers have a bad reputation but they are a good thing, not a bad thing!
The question being addressed was: Why do native speakers of English object to the term "buffer note?" A fairly extensive thread of comments went through various possibilities, and it discussed the problem of using "buffer" as a term. I was not confused, contrary to what you seem to think. But, as a native speaker of English, I do not think it is the best term available in English. It has nothing to do with whether a buffer is a good thing or a bad thing; it is simply a thing. But it is the wrong thing, I believe, to use as a metaphor for the kind of note that was being discussed.
I'm coming very late to this discussion. And very late to this website.
Did a consensus form? I like the concept. I have been calling my same type of note Placeholder Notes. I like Seed Notes as well. I am a native English (American) speaker.
@NickMilo22 I use Reference Notes and Literature Notes interchangeably. Kinda like Ahrens does pretty much.
In my case, I refer to a stagnant pool of notes, or just Stagnant Notes, with all the connotations of backup, blockage, disease, wastewater, raw sewage, infestation, slime mold, pollution, a breeding ground for evil, environmental degradation and so forth. But other than that it's neutral.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
The reasoning would be tautological. Buffer notes are temporary containers. If you want to make the content of the note permanent you don't have a buffer any more but a evergreen note.
The reasoning would be tautological because the term buffer note describes a practice that is not evergreen.
Suppose you consider the "permanency" of an evergreen note from the perspective of its non-stationary condition. In that case, you can see evergreen ones, an ever-living note, or a liquid one, which we might consider still pending, as @MartinBB said in this thread. Therefore, buffer too?
Suppose you consider the "permanency" of an evergreen note from the perspective of its non-stationary condition. In that case, you can see evergreen ones, an ever-living note, or a liquid one, which we might consider still pending, as @MartinBB said in this thread. Therefore, buffer too?
This line of thinking is already several levels too abstract and does not help understanding how to get value from the Zettelkasten Method.
Nothing is truly permanent since anything is subject to change.
On the ground level, a buffer note is simply a note which offers you to quickly capture note connections or further thinking if you make it a habit to check the buffer note. A collection of buffer note expand the functionality to think more broadly or work on more than one thing at the same time.
The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. (Francis Bacon, The New Organon)
Conceptual thinking is spider thinking if you try to understand action.
As a German native speaker I can easily see a likely etymology of the language pattern we are labouring over here. We see a descriptor followed by a rather painful 'note, thus we get:
structure note
buffer note
XYZ note
baseball note
study note
super note
…you get the idea.
I want to suggest that we drop this pattern entirely.
Taking a look at structure notes, they are akin to something that programmers would call a class or a class data structure or a class definition maybe.
Simple data structures in computer code do have simple names. They are called integers, strings, tuples etc pp
I would suggest we aim towards such simple, short and succinct names as well. Fast english instead of fastlish, if you would allow me some banter.
Ironically the word that would describe the structure note best would be the German word Gestalt. But let's not go there…
Another suggestion of mine would be to call them just struct.
It fits the bill and sounds enigmatic enough to be cool.
It is also not a word that is already used in a variety of ways by all kinds of people.; another argument for it's adoption by us.
Having said all the above, what's left for me is to contribute my submission for such a short word to designate a buffer note.
I'd go with pegger since it is fitting in terms of functionality while also featuring a nice double-entendre that the seasoned Zettelkasten holder will be able to appreciate.
@Perikles said:
As a German native speaker I can easily see a likely etymology of the language pattern we are labouring over here. We see a descriptor followed by a rather painful 'note, thus we get:
structure note
buffer note
XYZ note
baseball note
study note
super note
…you get the idea.
I want to suggest that we drop this pattern entirely.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time. kestrelcreek.com
I wish to introduce the term "gutter" for the space between notes, by analogy with the space between comic book panels. My best ideas bypass my notes for the gutter, and the rest slide off my notes into the gutter. I don't use the term buffer note. My notes aren't even buff, and none of them cushion the raw notes.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
@Perikles has a very good point. The more I think about it, the more I feel that a term that doesn't point at the "noteness" but at the actual function would be better.
*If everything is a note, the mentioning of "note" seems obsolete."
"Creating a buffer" appeals to me way more than "creating a buffer note"
Many thanks for that!
(If you want to be referenced for this idea with your full name, please send it to me via PM or time's square billboard)
Suppose one would consider a Zettelkasten as a finite category $(\mathcal{Z})$ and implement this in The Archive. In addition to Zettels--the objects $(\mathrm{Obj}\mathcal{Z})$, you would need another class $(\mathrm{Ar}\mathcal{Z})$ of arrows to name each directed relation between Zettels. Instead of, or in addition to, Wikilinks from one note to the next, this structure would require the user to name each directed relation between a source Zettel and its target. You might use the arrow's name to annotate the link's reason. For practical reasons, you might want to retain the Wikilink within the note and the additional annotated link, which could be displayed in various ways. I haven't thought much about the design, but it could be programmed to encourage what @Sascha recommends: to record the reason for adding a link.
I'm pretty sure that others have thought of this.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
@ZettelDistraction said:
Suppose one would consider a Zettelkasten as a finite category $(\mathcal{Z})$ and implement this in The Archive. In addition to Zettels--the objects $(\mathrm{Obj}\mathcal{Z})$, you would need another class $(\mathrm{Ar}\mathcal{Z})$ of arrows to name each directed relation between Zettels.
To be frank, I had hoped that you would propose the use of Functors or special Morphisms instead!
No piece of information is superior to any other. Power lies in having them all on file and then finding the connections. There are always connections; you have only to want to find them. —Umberto Eco
I considered it for a bit, but came to the conclusion that a homological algebraic approach would be more interesting for its combinatorial flavor.
Why is that funny--because you could take the nerve of the "Zettelkasten category" to get a simplicial set and derive a complex from it ... what did you have in mind?
Post edited by ZettelDistraction on
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Comments
Better late than never, as the buffer duffer said. (A duffer is someone who does something enthusiastically, but without talent or real ability; it is often used of golfers who like to play but can't hit the ball straight.) Nothing like a good language discussion! But all this gave me a headache, so I reached for some aspirin. My brand of choice? Bufferin, of course. (So called, because it is coated for those whose stomachs are upset by plain aspirin.)
I did understand right away that "buffer" was being used in the computer sense. Y'all are probably too young to remember (I have shoes that I suspect are older than many of you), but in the old dial-up days, we often had to wait what seemed an eternity while the system was "buffering." So I got it, but I agree it may not be the best term here. (I'm not sure I agree that it is confusing, only that it is perhaps not the best term generally; however, for people who work with the magical electrical whiz-bangs of today, it is not out of line.)
You want a term that suggests a holding-area where ideas go to wait, but not to die. A kind of waiting-room. Or a holding-pen, as for animals like cattle or sheep or pigs awaiting slaughter (maybe not the best image...). Or a ponding-basin, as for allowing water to purify naturally. (I'm both old and old-fashioned, and I prefer to use hyphens, as in the preceding sentences. Many of you will not. Of course, the NativeGermanspeakers will not be shocked by this fundamentally-Germanic structure. And, to be fair to the other great source of English, I used to teach French, and my user-name is Latin; it means "what I think.") Or, for the theatrical among you, a green room, where performers wait to be called on stage.
So what to choose? Some have suggested seedlings (or, more properly, seedbeds: the place where seeds are planted so they will grow into mighty whatevers). That is good, but it is broader than what is wanted, as it applies to any idea/note that has yet to flourish and burgeon into a real, grown-up note, whatever that may be. Here, it is not the maturity of the note, though that may be an issue, but rather the occasion to use it that is delayed. Whence the idea of waiting or holding, which terms like seedling and seedbed lack.
It occurs to me that "idea bank" might be a solution. "Bank" conveys something piled up: think of a river bank, where sediment piles up and contains the flow of the stream; of the bank (like OK, a word that seems to have made into just about every language without changing meaning), where your money piles up (maybe not in your account, but somewhere); or of a fog bank, an accumulation of haze. And, of course, a memory bank, for those who can remember the old days.
Just ut opinor.
I think your confusion results from lack of context? The most common way to learn how to use a word is by context, when communicating with other people. Maybe you are used to the use of that word only in a specific context, without really knowing what is going to be buffered and why (i wouldn't, at least, in case of dial-up systems). The purpose of a buffer is not for someone to wait to get a reply, or a bad excuse for something to be slow.
A buffer is not just a storage system, like a bank, and it is also not meant to make something wait. A buffer is used to prepare your work to be available in a different environment. For example, instead of going down the floor 10x a day to hand out some documents, you let them pile up on your desk and give them all at the end of the day. Or, on a crossroad the cars are piling up on one side, to pass all at once when the right conditions are met (green light). The purpose of the traffic light is to make traffic faster. Ironically in doing so it also makes the driver wait.
So, i see why buffers have a bad reputation but they are a good thing, not a bad thing!
my first Zettel uid: 202008120915
The question being addressed was: Why do native speakers of English object to the term "buffer note?" A fairly extensive thread of comments went through various possibilities, and it discussed the problem of using "buffer" as a term. I was not confused, contrary to what you seem to think. But, as a native speaker of English, I do not think it is the best term available in English. It has nothing to do with whether a buffer is a good thing or a bad thing; it is simply a thing. But it is the wrong thing, I believe, to use as a metaphor for the kind of note that was being discussed.
I am sorry i didn't follow the entire discussion.
my first Zettel uid: 202008120915
I'm coming very late to this discussion. And very late to this website.
Did a consensus form? I like the concept. I have been calling my same type of note Placeholder Notes. I like Seed Notes as well. I am a native English (American) speaker.
@NickMilo22 I use Reference Notes and Literature Notes interchangeably. Kinda like Ahrens does pretty much.
I am a Zettler.
How about "incubator" inspired by GTD and seed notes?
Incubator ist a cool name. It is even more appropriate for my current personal practice.
I am a Zettler
"Proofing oven" ...
In my case, I refer to a stagnant pool of notes, or just Stagnant Notes, with all the connotations of backup, blockage, disease, wastewater, raw sewage, infestation, slime mold, pollution, a breeding ground for evil, environmental degradation and so forth. But other than that it's neutral.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Is the "evergreen" concept nothing to do with the "buffer" one, considering them a living note?
David Delgado Vendrell
www.daviddelgado.cat
Yes.
I am a Zettler
@Sascha Reasoning?
David Delgado Vendrell
www.daviddelgado.cat
The reasoning would be tautological. Buffer notes are temporary containers. If you want to make the content of the note permanent you don't have a buffer any more but a evergreen note.
The reasoning would be tautological because the term buffer note describes a practice that is not evergreen.
I am a Zettler
@Sascha From that standpoint, It makes sense.
Suppose you consider the "permanency" of an evergreen note from the perspective of its non-stationary condition. In that case, you can see evergreen ones, an ever-living note, or a liquid one, which we might consider still pending, as @MartinBB said in this thread. Therefore, buffer too?
David Delgado Vendrell
www.daviddelgado.cat
This line of thinking is already several levels too abstract and does not help understanding how to get value from the Zettelkasten Method.
Nothing is truly permanent since anything is subject to change.
On the ground level, a buffer note is simply a note which offers you to quickly capture note connections or further thinking if you make it a habit to check the buffer note. A collection of buffer note expand the functionality to think more broadly or work on more than one thing at the same time.
Conceptual thinking is spider thinking if you try to understand action.
I am a Zettler
Thanks, @Sascha.
I'll think about your highlighted F. Bacon's quote to figure out what you meant.
David Delgado Vendrell
www.daviddelgado.cat
Why not "prenote" or "pre-note"? Or prep-note?
Enigmas. ???
As a German native speaker I can easily see a likely etymology of the language pattern we are labouring over here. We see a descriptor followed by a rather painful 'note, thus we get:
…you get the idea.
I want to suggest that we drop this pattern entirely.
Taking a look at structure notes, they are akin to something that programmers would call a class or a class data structure or a class definition maybe.
Simple data structures in computer code do have simple names. They are called integers, strings, tuples etc pp
I would suggest we aim towards such simple, short and succinct names as well. Fast english instead of fastlish, if you would allow me some banter.
Ironically the word that would describe the structure note best would be the German word Gestalt. But let's not go there…
Another suggestion of mine would be to call them just struct.
It fits the bill and sounds enigmatic enough to be cool.
It is also not a word that is already used in a variety of ways by all kinds of people.; another argument for it's adoption by us.
Having said all the above, what's left for me is to contribute my submission for such a short word to designate a buffer note.
I'd go with pegger since it is fitting in terms of functionality while also featuring a nice double-entendre that the seasoned Zettelkasten holder will be able to appreciate.
I agree that these are silly note types.
For more hot-ticket silly content, check out The Official Luhmann Certified 100 Note Categories™ — Zettelkasten Forum.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
I wish to introduce the term "gutter" for the space between notes, by analogy with the space between comic book panels. My best ideas bypass my notes for the gutter, and the rest slide off my notes into the gutter. I don't use the term buffer note. My notes aren't even buff, and none of them cushion the raw notes.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
@Perikles has a very good point. The more I think about it, the more I feel that a term that doesn't point at the "noteness" but at the actual function would be better.
*If everything is a note, the mentioning of "note" seems obsolete."
"Creating a buffer" appeals to me way more than "creating a buffer note"
Many thanks for that!
(If you want to be referenced for this idea with your full name, please send it to me via PM or time's square billboard)
I am a Zettler
To add an abstraction to @Perikles's idea to use programming terms, the next logical step would be mathematical category theory maybe?
Cue @ZettelDistraction !!
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
Suppose one would consider a Zettelkasten as a finite category $(\mathcal{Z})$ and implement this in The Archive. In addition to Zettels--the objects $(\mathrm{Obj}\mathcal{Z})$, you would need another class $(\mathrm{Ar}\mathcal{Z})$ of arrows to name each directed relation between Zettels. Instead of, or in addition to, Wikilinks from one note to the next, this structure would require the user to name each directed relation between a source Zettel and its target. You might use the arrow's name to annotate the link's reason. For practical reasons, you might want to retain the Wikilink within the note and the additional annotated link, which could be displayed in various ways. I haven't thought much about the design, but it could be programmed to encourage what @Sascha recommends: to record the reason for adding a link.
I'm pretty sure that others have thought of this.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Your humour is from the outer universe.
I am a Zettler
To be frank, I had hoped that you would propose the use of Functors or special Morphisms instead!
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
I considered it for a bit, but came to the conclusion that a homological algebraic approach would be more interesting for its combinatorial flavor.
website | digital slipbox 🗃️🖋️
Why is that funny--because you could take the nerve of the "Zettelkasten category" to get a simplicial set and derive a complex from it ... what did you have in mind?
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
I've seen difficulties to understand the concept of buffer, I've tried to explain here:
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/20980/#Comment_20980
I wish I hadn't posted my remarks above.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.