connecting notes - a lesson learned

zk_1000

goals: The notes are atomic and the connections between them do not define structure. The notes are connected in order: first in first served, regardless of content.

It looks like this:

[1] a concept
  [2] type 1
    [3] type 2
      [4] type 3

I thought this connection makes sense because the notes all belong to one thinking process. Now, working with these notes in the future is a burden because i cannot easily add new, different thinking processes to the existing one. A better solution would be:

[1] a concept
  [2] type 1
  [3] type 2
  [4] type 3

Now i can add new thinking processes on each of these OR elaborate the existing thinking process.

When looking at a list of note titles i am still struggling to tell apart opportunities to expand a branch from opportunities to following a branch, when adding a new note. In the list they look the same and i have to visit the note to know what to do.

For example:

[1] a concept
  [2] type 1
  [3] idea for [1]
  [4] type 2

All are atomic, but [1, 2, 4] could be reused standalone while [1, 3] could be reused in combination.

MartinBB

My own personal view, for what it is worth, is that it is better to have associations than hierarchies. So I tend to avoid creating hierarchies.

zk_1000

@MartinBB thank you for your reply. I am using a separate, independent network for associations. I make an association to a note by providing context and links in the note. The above goals are only met for notes that contain a single idea.