Zettelkasten Forum


Should structure notes be specially designated in the title?

I am wondering what everyone's thoughts on it are.

Do you think it is a good practice to provide some sort of sign to denote that a note is actually a structure note in the note name?

Things like "§1" and "§2" (what sascha seems to be using) or "MOC" (what seems to be popular among obsidian users).

Or do you think that it is unnecessary and a tag might be enough if such a thing is needed?

Comments

  • edited November 21

    Indicating MOC at the beginning of a structure note is the easiest way
    for me to mark a note as a structure note. When searching for a
    structure note, typing MOC followed by topic of interest is effective
    to navigate in between structure notes. I am experimenting this
    methodology. Using tags to indicate structure is also durable, but I
    personally never use this method. I guess this is due to the software
    not providing such a functionality by default, but adding such feature
    is trivial by writing a grep wrapper.

    Post edited by learning_ran on
  • edited November 21

    I follow @sfast's lead and use §. Like this (the ¶ symbol is for a note that defines a term; ≈ is a project note--sort of a table of contents for the ZK as a whole):

    Started ZK 4.2018. "The path is at your feet, see? Now carry on."

  • Wow! 19 notes in 3 days! Must have been quite a lightning storm of creativity and insight.

    Will Simpson
    I'm a Zettelnant.
    Research: Rationalism, Zen, Dzogchen, Non-fiction Creative Writing
    kestrelcreek.com

  • edited November 24

    @Will said:
    Wow! 19 notes in 3 days! Must have been quite a lightning storm of creativity and insight.

    I've been experimenting with writing notes by hand and then transcribing them into my ZK. This increases my note-production rate. My usual rate is 2 notes a day!

    Started ZK 4.2018. "The path is at your feet, see? Now carry on."

  • @Shandi said:
    I am wondering what everyone's thoughts on it are.

    Do you think it is a good practice to provide some sort of sign to denote that a note is actually a structure note in the note name?

    Things like "§1" and "§2" (what sascha seems to be using) or "MOC" (what seems to be popular among obsidian users).

    Or do you think that it is unnecessary and a tag might be enough if such a thing is needed?

    I also think that having an indicator for a structure note in its title is very useful. Sometimes you want to search for structure notes only or exclude them from the search – that's when these indicators come in handy. And it's easier to spot them in the note list as well.

  • It depends on your workflow, doesn't it. Are you looking through lists of notes and want to distinguish structure notes from the rest? If yes, then an indicator would be handy.

    I am a Zettler

  • @sfast said:
    It depends on your workflow, doesn't it. Are you looking through lists of notes and want to distinguish structure notes from the rest? If yes, then an indicator would be handy.

    Yes, I agree with this statement. I don't use them and don't miss them either :wink:

  • @GeoEng51 said:

    @sfast said:
    It depends on your workflow, doesn't it. Are you looking through lists of notes and want to distinguish structure notes from the rest? If yes, then an indicator would be handy.

    Yes, I agree with this statement. I don't use them and don't miss them either :wink:

    Heresy! :D

    I am a Zettler

  • @sfast - haha! I should clarify - I don't use a single symbol to designate a structure note or any other kind of notes. I do, on occasion, use structure notes, and when I do, I use a tag (#structure). :blush:

Sign In or Register to comment.