@ralfw how do you deal with backlinks in Notion. It doesn't have ability to search by @ mentions. At the moment I'm creating a backling manually in the target note.
@ralfw so do you create the backlinks manually? I'm using the autocomplete functionality of @. BTW I'm not using the "link to page" blocks because for some strange reason they are not part of the export in case I decide to leave the ship!
Let me rephrase. When I crate a link from A to B I'd like to be able to see the backlink from B->A. At the moment I need to manually create a link from B to A but it's very easy to forget about it. As I understand it, in Zettelkasten links should be a bidirectional.
I see how guys here solve this problem when using plain text files. They simply search for the id of the B note and they find all the notes that link to B.
Notion support says that there are no automatic backlinks implemented at the moment.
@dturczanski I‘m not doing backlinks, at least not in all cases.
If I wanted to do that I would not expect an automatic feature for it. I include links where I need them on a zettel. So I‘d want to place them manually anyway.
What „should be“ in a zettelkasten does not interest me much😉. I‘m catering to my needs. And I haven‘t felt the need for backlinks so far. But that might be different for other people. And it might change in the future for me.
Notion not exporting certain data of course is annoying. I also have reported a deficit in that regard. Currently, though, that‘s of no big concern to me. The need to switch to another platform is an abstract possibility I only want to prep for so much. Limiting myself to simple textfiles is not what I feel necessary.
If there was a tool providing the fidelity and ease of use of Notion while at the same time using just plain text as a storage medium, I‘d be happy to use it. I don‘t fear switching, I don‘t feel locked in.
Thank you for sharing, as I am just starting out with a "real" (=more structured, cross-linked) Zettelkasten, I find it very useful in my screen-centric workflow.
One small change that works well for me: I've found that adding some empty Notion entries for the category heading works well to better recognize the start of a new topic later on.
For example, before adding notes on the topic of Agile, I'll add an empty "card" with just a title and maybe a short abstract
Works well so far. Some features I miss in contrast to analog Zettel, but I find it more accessible.
Any other ideas on how to support visual organisation of notion Zettel collections ?
That's a really interesing idea, @nmarkus, with the "divider zettel".
It also could be used to compile selected zettels from the category it represents, like an overview.
But at first at least it pretty much depends on a chronological order of zettels. Is that why you still keep the id around (eg "191120a")?
yes, I could not figure out how to keep the manual order consistent and found it easier to use the numbers, also to indicate "sub-Zettel". Do you have a better idea maybe?
How do you compile your notes when you are ready for writing?
That is the getting things out of Notion and using..
I find that it takes time to open/close each item in Notion - and if you had lets say 30 notes that are ready to be turned into writing then collecting them all (in order) would take time?
You could do the organization in Notion - moving order of notes around? Perhaps copy them to project folder in Notion?
But after that you need to copy/paste each note into writing software? - or is there easier export option?
@Thame: I'm not working like that for my blog posts or magazine articles. But let me imagine how I would do it:
Option 1: I create a new note in Notion for a writing project and put in links to all relevant zettels using @ references.
Option 2: I add a property "project" (type single select) to the zettel database. In that enter for each relevant zettel a project ID. I then create a view or (on a new Notion page) a linked table (with a view) with a filter set to the project property limiting the shown zettels to the ones with the project ID. In that view I can arrange them to my liking.
I like option 2 because there are two phases:
Compilation: Browsing the zettelkasten for relevant notes.
Arranging: Perusing the compiled notes in the project view and getting them in an appropriate order.
Update on the export issue. It is not possible to export selected items from database/ page with linked database - had a chat with support about this. You can only export everything.
They will add 'filtered export' to feature wish list.
There is an option to print filtered database page from chrome - to pdf. But then all text would have to be visible since this looks basically like a screen capture.
So then only option would be to export entire database and sort out relevant zettels - or manual copy/paste from Notion?
@ralfw said: @Thame: I'm not working like that for my blog posts or magazine articles. But let me imagine how I would do it:
Option 1: I create a new note in Notion for a writing project and put in links to all relevant zettels using @ references.
Option 2: I add a property "project" (type single select) to the zettel database. In that enter for each relevant zettel a project ID. I then create a view or (on a new Notion page) a linked table (with a view) with a filter set to the project property limiting the shown zettels to the ones with the project ID. In that view I can arrange them to my liking.
I like option 2 because there are two phases:
Compilation: Browsing the zettelkasten for relevant notes.
Arranging: Perusing the compiled notes in the project view and getting them in an appropriate order.
Hope this helps.
It really does.
Let me say, you inspired me big time.
As a huge fan of Notion I was searching for a better way incorporating the Zettelkasten methodology (Status: Total noob) into my workflow:
Create a page like yours
Add an inline-table
Add Zettels into that table - so far so good
Since ideas won't strike only me sitting in front of my laptop...
I open Notion on my Mobile
Wherever place I am -> Press new note and chose my "Zettelkasten" page
Fill in the blanks, but
Later I need to drag&drop my new note into the table OR
As above, but
Before I create the note, I already choose the "Zettelkasten" page and
Tab "New" inside the table
Then write my note and fill the blanks - DONE
Does that resonate with you guys or am I missing something? Suggestions?
Why Notion might not be the right approach to Zettelkasten Methodology
Preliminary thoughts
While Notion is organized with a table and database like approach it's very easy to find related Zettels. Maybe that strength is its biggest weakness?
If I'm not mistaken here, The Zettelkasten has - for a very good reason - the following organizational structure (scroll down to the image say, at the end of the third into the Post)
Zettel 1, 2, 3 and so on
Likewise for the next branch: Zettel 1a, 1b
So 2a for instance is connected to 2, 2b but NOT to 1, 3
And here are the shortcomings
Since we can easily find all relations due to tagging, we abandon this structure
We are able to filter and sort all Zettels and have a view on everything related
BUT, is that enough?
Don't we miss out on something ingrained into the Zettelkasten Methodology or am I just making this up?
What are your thoughts? I can't wait to hear back on you.
Because I appreciate you thoughts I include the link to my Notion-Page 😎
Hm... I don't think your critique pertains to Notion as a tool but to digital tools in general where searching and tagging are simple.
But was Luhmann's approach really superior? I don't think so. It more looks like the easiest thing to do while being stuck with paper. So we should not fall prey to an "appeal to nature": just because it was natural to Luhmann we should stick to how he did it.
Let's not kid ourselves: To express a tree in a single identifier is just, well, a kludge ;-)
The "right" way to express trees is, well, as trees, ie. with nodes and links between nodes. Or by nesting nodes inside other nodes.
Luhmann's identifier scheme is a way to express nesting first (without physically nesting notes). But he also used identifiers as references - thereby creating not only a tree, but a more free-form graph of zettels.
If you like, you can nest zettels in Notion, too. Just create pages inside of pages. That's even better than Luhmann's approach because it truly creates a tree. And then you can create references across branches in Notion with @-references (our outright page URL links).
And then you can open the tree of pages on the left to actually see it. Much better than in Luhmann's zettelkasten.
No, sorry, I don't think we're missing any mysterious property of Luhmann's zettelkasten. He just made the best of the limited tools he had at hand.
@ralfw said:
Hm... I don't think your critique pertains to Notion as a tool but to digital tools in general where searching and tagging are simple.
But was Luhmann's approach really superior? I don't think so. It more looks like the easiest thing to do while being stuck with paper. So we should not fall prey to an "appeal to nature": just because it was natural to Luhmann we should stick to how he did it.
Let's not kid ourselves: To express a tree in a single identifier is just, well, a kludge ;-)
The "right" way to express trees is, well, as trees, ie. with nodes and links between nodes. Or by nesting nodes inside other nodes.
Luhmann's identifier scheme is a way to express nesting first (without physically nesting notes). But he also used identifiers as references - thereby creating not only a tree, but a more free-form graph of zettels.
If you like, you can nest zettels in Notion, too. Just create pages inside of pages. That's even better than Luhmann's approach because it truly creates a tree. And then you can create references across branches in Notion with @-references (our outright page URL links).
And then you can open the tree of pages on the left to actually see it. Much better than in Luhmann's zettelkasten.
No, sorry, I don't think we're missing any mysterious property of Luhmann's zettelkasten. He just made the best of the limited tools he had at hand.
I do see your point and couldn't agree more with the statement, that nested pages might be the approach Luhmann would have taken if he could .
The one thing I wish Notion would be able to do is: Backlinking.
Why I'm telling you this? Because RoamReaserch blew me out of the water. Without further ado, check it out for yourself and tell me what you think, will you?
Thank you for all your thoughts and advice, really appreciate it. Have a great day.
@jburkhard There are no backlinks in Notion? Hm... How about this:
In the zettelkasten each zettel can reference any number of other zettels - and at the same time is listed in those with a backlink.
See how Parent points to Child (Referenced Zettels property) - and Child automatically points back to Parent (Backlinks property).
This way you can weave a web of zettels. (The only drawback: it has to be done with properties; automatic backlinks cannot be created with @ refercences.)
How's that?
Roam is looking pretty cool. But it's still in research. I won't trust it my main zettelkasten, I guess ;-) But maybe in a couple of months... Who knows? Thx for the tip!
@ralfw wrote:
But was Luhmann's approach really superior? I don't think so. It more looks like the easiest thing to do while being stuck with paper. So we should not fall prey to an "appeal to nature": just because it was natural to Luhmann we should stick to how he did it.
Luhmann's approach is a proven one. This is one of the main issues with digital appraoches to note taking an similar problems. Quite often they are theory-diven with no true evidence at all. To copy a successful person is way better than following a theory: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
@Sascha New evidence and experiences has to come from somewhere. I don't see why there should be a dogma regarding what can and can't be tried. I've too foregone ID'ing every note and so found I don't miss anything, albeit I can't back up my claims with an output of multiple books.
@henrikenggaard said: @Sascha New evidence and experiences has to come from somewhere. I don't see why there should be a dogma regarding what can and can't be tried. I've too foregone ID'ing every note and so found I don't miss anything, albeit I can't back up my claims with an output of multiple books.
There is a very big difference between stating that you try something that will deviate from a way that is proven by success based on a theory and making a claim based on speculation (this is what theory without evidence is).
In this forum, I try to keep it overly clean in this regard. There is too much speculation and a lot of overconfidence that misleads many beginners. I don't care about it a lot. But I try to keep this forum clean of careless claims because I am responsible here.
As a trainer, I come across a lot of claims. Most of them have in common that they don't messure what they claim to achieve. If measurement is taken it is inacurate (e.g. listing positive testimonals with ignoring the success to failure ratio) most of the time. The same is true in this field. In private, I talk a lot about this. Just to get it out of my system. Some people tried to convince me to debunk such things. But I won't because I have no interest although I have a bliss to watch flame wars.. But this is the reason why I can come across a bit harsh.
@Sascha Sorry if I enticed a flamewar. Definitely not my intention this forum has, since I found it, been one of the nicest places I've found in a long time.
A particularly good point in your post is with regard to measuring outcomes. It is challenging because in so much as a Zettelkasten is an aid to writing, users of it will have completely different goals in mind: some work in different field, some write books etc. etc. Perhaps the best recourse is to have a peer to discuss your efforts/mentor. This is going off-topic from the original thread topic
@henrikenggaard I don't think you started a "flamewar". The thread went off rails before that. And that's sad.
A perfectly no-nonsense, focused, friendly thread was unnecessarily turned into a meta-discussion. And why? Just because I was doubting that Luhmann had invented some perfect system? Are musings not allowed? Is skepticism not wanted? Is Luhmann a saint? I hope not.
I disagree with what @Sascha said: "Luhmann's approach is a proven one." The simple reason: I don't see any proof.
Is there a mathematical proof? Sure not.
Is there a scientific proof? Sure not.
So what does "proof" mean in this context other than "a couple of people got satisfying results from applying Luhmann's approach to the best of their understanding"?
And that's perfectly fine with me. Whoever is happy by "copying a successful person" is enviable in my opinion.
But, please, don't make that a mantra or worse, a dogma. Many a master probably has started out by copying another master. But in the end... a master always transcends his teachers. Which does not - in my view - mean he becomes better than them, but independent of them.
Is there only one Yoga in the world? Hardly. Is there only one Karate in the world? Hardly. There is only one set of physical laws which cannot be denied by any Karate or Yoga school. But within the framework of physical laws "anything goes" which serves the purpose. And that is a matter of experience and also taste, I guess.
So, should there be only one, canonical way of organizing zettels? I don't think so. Has Luhmann invented the one and only system for best organizing zettels? I don't think so (and I cannot image Luhmann claiming such thing).
I find it very sad that this triviality "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." had to be cited. To me that sounds like an utterance from some guild master from the 14th century. And we know why they designed their rules like they did.
I thought this was a forum to explore (!) ways of organizing knowledge in the spirit of Luhmann. For that I don't think the moderator of this forum has more responsibility than to keep everyone somewhat focused and of course friendly (which does not mean unanimous).
Exploration to me means trying out new (!) ways of doing something. And before trying out new ways probably discussing ideas (!). Or are ideas too much speculation, too much theory?
Well, in my experience ideas/theories lead to experiments. And experiments might be deviations from what has been tried before. And they might support the idea or don't deliver expected results.
Thus: Theory informs practice - and practice informs theory. It's a co-evolution! Advancement in a skill needs both. It's not either-or, but as-well-as.
And how much theory is "good"? That probably depends on the context/topic and also is a personal matter. Maybe some don't like much theory, and that's fine with me. But maybe I like more of it? That should be fine, too. Or not?
In my posting I speculated about how Luhmann (like everyone) was just a "child of his times". He (like everyone) was limited by available technology. He could not even have done experiments with digital tools like we have at our disposal today. So he could not have contrasted his approach with a pure digital approach - and have found that his was superior to what could be done today with tools like Notion or Roam Research or The Brain or Dropbox Paper or Bear Writer or just Sublime.
And why would that be bad? It was inevitable and Luhmann did great things with his approach, his tool. I'm thankful for that.
But what I don't derive from his personal success is reverence or the need to stick to his approach.
The laws of phyiscs are unchanged, how our brains are working probably also hasn't changed much. But I guess there is a lot of room for improvement as to how we organize our knowledge with an ever changing set of technologies and tools. Most closely sticking to an approach from the mid of the last century does not sound like a lasting recipe for success to me.
@henrikenggaard said: @Sascha Sorry if I enticed a flamewar. Definitely not my intention this forum has, since I found it, been one of the nicest places I've found in a long time.
No, you didn't. Perhaps, my English swallowed my humor.
@henrikenggaard said:
A particularly good point in your post is with regard to measuring outcomes. It is challenging because in so much as a Zettelkasten is an aid to writing, users of it will have completely different goals in mind: some work in different field, some write books etc. etc. Perhaps the best recourse is to have a peer to discuss your efforts/mentor. This is going off-topic from the original thread topic
In my opinion, this what makes any field problematic. If you don't measure with precision you can't make any claims about the quality of your actions. Sometimes, I have the feeling that everything is about efficiency and such things. But it is perfectly fine to say that one is happier in such and such a way. Not the most precise measurement but still valid if that is your goal.
@ralfw said:
A perfectly no-nonsense, focused, friendly thread was unnecessarily turned into a meta-discussion. And why? Just because I was doubting that Luhmann had invented some perfect system? Are musings not allowed? Is skepticism not wanted? Is Luhmann a saint? I hope not.
You seem more aggrevated that you are challenged. It is not about Luhmann being a saint. It is about your statements that are founded on speculation and that such things need to be challenged and uncovered as speculation. Your "challenge" just is a "it looks like". This is an unfounded claim. And since your are not some saint you can be challenged.
I disagree with what @Sascha said: "Luhmann's approach is a proven one." The simple reason: I don't see any proof.
Is there a mathematical proof? Sure not.
Is there a scientific proof? Sure not.
So what does "proof" mean in this context other than "a couple of people got satisfying results from applying Luhmann's approach to the best of their understanding"?
You seem not to understand what "proof" means. So, I'll clarify:
The only field where proof in a strict sense is possible is mathematics.
There is no scientific proof. There is only scientific evidence.
When talking about proof in a non-technical manner it is mostly about treating things as if it counts as strong evidence.
Success is one of the strongest tests that "prove" the quality of something in practice.
But, please, don't make that a mantra or worse, a dogma. Many a master probably has started out by copying another master. But in the end... a master always transcends his teachers. Which does not - in my view - mean he becomes better than them, but independent of them.
This is a strawman. Challenge everything you want. There is no dogma here. It is about how you challenge. Challenging something proven (not in the mathematical sense. "Bewährt" not "Bewiesen" for the Germans) with some weak speculation is a problem when you promote it.
Is there only one Yoga in the world? Hardly. Is there only one Karate in the world? Hardly. There is only one set of physical laws which cannot be denied by any Karate or Yoga school. But within the framework of physical laws "anything goes" which serves the purpose. And that is a matter of experience and also taste, I guess.
It is nice that you mention Karate. In the world of martial arts the same game was played which is played in this field. Everybody made claims about this punch working that way and that kick working like such and such. But when the UFC came, a hard wake up call was made. And (not surprisingly) the mixed martial artist started to look more and more similar.
Many claims (like some of yours) are not about the physics but about kicks and punches working or not working. They are unfounded speculation. It is fine to speculate. But then be a bit humble and clear about the nature of speculation.
I find it very sad that this triviality "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." had to be cited. To me that sounds like an utterance from some guild master from the 14th century. And we know why they designed their rules like they did.
Proving the point of the phrase. It is not a triviality but a major pit fall. At least in practice. In theory, however, it is just a triviality.
I thought this was a forum to explore (!) ways of organizing knowledge in the spirit of Luhmann. For that I don't think the moderator of this forum has more responsibility than to keep everyone somewhat focused and of course friendly (which does not mean unanimous).
Thanks for your thoughts and the opportunity to clarify: Speculation and thought experiments are one piece of the puzzle. This forum offers plattform to that. It offers not something like a safe space where speculations don't get challenged or nobody gets reminded that there is something that is proven to work and other things are risky speculations. There are quite some people who want results. And there are quite some people who look in this forum for guidance. Those people need clarity.
You are speculating some non-proven theory, complaining about being challenged while at the same time claiming that challenging ideas is what the forum is about.
Your ideas about the responsibility of moderators of this forum are wrong.
Since @Sascha asked me via dm to answer his posting let me comply by saying:
I haven't answered due to a simple principle: Whenever someone bluntly tells me in a social medium like this "You are wrong." (as in "Your ideas about the responsibility of moderators of this forum are wrong.") I simply do not answer since that's not on a level I want to continue on.
I'm sorry, but I'm now leaving this meta-meta conversation for good.
Thanks for the compliance. I don't beat around the bush. I explained to you why you are wrong about the responsiblities of this forum. The rest of my post may remain unchallenged if you wish.
Is it wise to begin using The Archive first to develop solid habit first?
Once habit is built, is it easy to important a database of thousands of zettels into Notion?
Your screenshots look great, but switching all the zettels and their The Archive dats seem scary. Was it easy?
Lastly, can Notion handle thousands of zettels without getting cluttered? Or is that where the tagging compoment helps? I can't envision seeing 1000 zettels in Notion under one tag one moment, then the view back to 'view all zettels' and then being able to scroll chronologically across 10,000 zettels... is there a limit to how many you can have in notion and does it get cluttered?
Just wanting to begin my journey, and not paralyse myself with perfectionism either.
Is it wise to begin using The Archive first to develop solid habit first?
My experience is, that using a tool leads to insights you won't be able to get otherwise. Practice uncovers good and bad things of all sorts. Some things are working just fine, others are not. It's the conflicts between reality and your imagination that then can send you on a journey to the next tool (or to find ways to use a tool in a different, better way).
All this practical experience with a tool or a tool belt has to rest on a foundation of theory, in my view. What is it that I want to accomplish? What kind of web of zettels do I want to weave? What kind of support would I like to see from a tool?
These and other questions pop up in my mind to be answered just with a hypothesis.
The hypothesis then is checked by doing an experiment, ie. becoming practical: choosing and using a tool.
Which then leads to insights of some kind, which leads to the next generation of my hypothesis.
To adopt a "solid habit", though, does not depend on a particular zettelkasten tool. It's more a matter of behavior design. Maybe you want to check out the book "Tiny Habits" by BJ Fogg on that. I found that a very insightful read regarding habit formation.
Once habit is built, is it easy to important a database of thousands of zettels into Notion?
Hm... I don't remember the import process in detail anymore, but my feeling is that it was pretty easy
There where two things, though, I struggled a bit with:
My zettels in The Archive were IDed. That turned out to be noise in Notion.
The Tags I used inside my zettel .md files could not be transformed into Notion page properties to base table views on.
Images referenced from my local file system (close to the .md files) were not imported, I think.
Other than that it was ok to import the .md files.
Your screenshots look great, but switching all the zettels and their The Archive dats seem scary. Was it easy?
What do you mean by "dats"?
The images I posted are of zettels not imported from The Archive but added later "natively" in Notion.
Lastly, can Notion handle thousands of zettels without getting cluttered? Or is that where the tagging compoment helps? I can't envision seeing 1000 zettels in Notion under one tag one moment, then the view back to 'view all zettels' and then being able to scroll chronologically across 10,000 zettels... is there a limit to how many you can have in notion and does it get cluttered?
Can a file system handle thousands of .md files without getting cluttered? Sure - but it depends on how you structure it using folders. Or if you can provide a different view using some kind of tool looking at the content of the .md files.
Can Notion handle thousands of zettels without getting cluttered? Sure - but it depends on how you structure the workspace using pages (which can also be used like folders) and databases (tables).
If you tag 1000 zettels with the same tag the result is the same in Notion as in any other tool: they show up when you search for the tag
Notion is prepared to carry the load of 10000 zettels as any relational or document database is, I guess. But still you have to find your way to organize the content with the features provided.
What features do Evernote or The Archive provide? What does Notion provide in addition?
Maybe Notion is even lacking something you want - but is shines in some other regard.
I guess you have to try it for yourself. Play around with its features. What I did with Notion could be a starting point - and then you find a way to do it differently and better for your purposes.
I'm using Roam for my zettelkasten now. But I keep my previous zettels in Notion. If need be I can link both ways.
For other purposes I continue to use Notion, however.
Just wanting to begin my journey, and not paralyse myself with perfectionism either.
That sounds like a helpful attitude. So, start your journey with whatever tool you like - just don't assume it's the last tool you'll ever use for your zettelkasten
Hey @ralfw , to lower my risk as first time user of The Archive and previous user of Notion pre-starting Zettelkasten (my first official day) is it easy / possible to switch to Notion down the line if I so choose?
@kmichail: I don't know if you'd call it "easy" ;-) But there is a way from The Archive to Notion. That's what I did: I imported all my The Archive .md files as entries of a Notion table.
But there's always a loss in such conversions, I'd say. You've to be ok with that. Or be ok with using multiple tools. Like I'm using Roam now and have used Notion for my Zettelkasten. But I'm not intending to move Notion zettels to Roam.
Prepare yourself to find you own way through the evolving landscape of tools and approaches. Betting on one of them for the rest of your life to me is a premature optimization.
Comments
@ralfw I'm having difficulty responding due to the forum's anti-spam requirement. But your information really helped!
@ralfw how do you deal with backlinks in Notion. It doesn't have ability to search by @ mentions. At the moment I'm creating a backling manually in the target note.
@willtm Glad to hear it! :-)
@dturczanski You mean links between Notion pages? When you enter "@" and continue typing all page titles will be searched matching your input.
Or you use the "global search" (Cmd-P), look up the page, get the link for it, and paste it in where you need it.
I mostly do the first. Sometimes I use "absolute" page links to put into other pages' properties.
@ralfw so do you create the backlinks manually? I'm using the autocomplete functionality of @. BTW I'm not using the "link to page" blocks because for some strange reason they are not part of the export in case I decide to leave the ship!
Let me rephrase. When I crate a link from A to B I'd like to be able to see the backlink from B->A. At the moment I need to manually create a link from B to A but it's very easy to forget about it. As I understand it, in Zettelkasten links should be a bidirectional.
I see how guys here solve this problem when using plain text files. They simply search for the id of the B note and they find all the notes that link to B.
Notion support says that there are no automatic backlinks implemented at the moment.
@dturczanski I‘m not doing backlinks, at least not in all cases.
If I wanted to do that I would not expect an automatic feature for it. I include links where I need them on a zettel. So I‘d want to place them manually anyway.
What „should be“ in a zettelkasten does not interest me much😉. I‘m catering to my needs. And I haven‘t felt the need for backlinks so far. But that might be different for other people. And it might change in the future for me.
Notion not exporting certain data of course is annoying. I also have reported a deficit in that regard. Currently, though, that‘s of no big concern to me. The need to switch to another platform is an abstract possibility I only want to prep for so much. Limiting myself to simple textfiles is not what I feel necessary.
If there was a tool providing the fidelity and ease of use of Notion while at the same time using just plain text as a storage medium, I‘d be happy to use it. I don‘t fear switching, I don‘t feel locked in.
But with any tool your mileage will vary😉
Thank you for sharing, as I am just starting out with a "real" (=more structured, cross-linked) Zettelkasten, I find it very useful in my screen-centric workflow.
One small change that works well for me: I've found that adding some empty Notion entries for the category heading works well to better recognize the start of a new topic later on.
For example, before adding notes on the topic of Agile, I'll add an empty "card" with just a title and maybe a short abstract
Works well so far. Some features I miss in contrast to analog Zettel, but I find it more accessible.
Any other ideas on how to support visual organisation of notion Zettel collections ?
That's a really interesing idea, @nmarkus, with the "divider zettel".
It also could be used to compile selected zettels from the category it represents, like an overview.
But at first at least it pretty much depends on a chronological order of zettels. Is that why you still keep the id around (eg "191120a")?
yes, I could not figure out how to keep the manual order consistent and found it easier to use the numbers, also to indicate "sub-Zettel". Do you have a better idea maybe?
another reason is that I want to document the numbering somewhere in case of export
Thank you for sharing your set-up.
How do you compile your notes when you are ready for writing?
That is the getting things out of Notion and using..
I find that it takes time to open/close each item in Notion - and if you had lets say 30 notes that are ready to be turned into writing then collecting them all (in order) would take time?
You could do the organization in Notion - moving order of notes around? Perhaps copy them to project folder in Notion?
But after that you need to copy/paste each note into writing software? - or is there easier export option?
I am new to Notion...
@Thame: I'm not working like that for my blog posts or magazine articles. But let me imagine how I would do it:
Option 1: I create a new note in Notion for a writing project and put in links to all relevant zettels using @ references.
Option 2: I add a property "project" (type single select) to the zettel database. In that enter for each relevant zettel a project ID. I then create a view or (on a new Notion page) a linked table (with a view) with a filter set to the project property limiting the shown zettels to the ones with the project ID. In that view I can arrange them to my liking.
I like option 2 because there are two phases:
Hope this helps.
@ralfw Thank you for the quick reply. Much appreciated.
Yes, option 2 seems to work quite well. Thank you for this idea. And having a project field also makes sense.
Am now experimenting with export function. So that I can export selected zettels in one go and use text and info in writing software.
Update on the export issue. It is not possible to export selected items from database/ page with linked database - had a chat with support about this. You can only export everything.
They will add 'filtered export' to feature wish list.
There is an option to print filtered database page from chrome - to pdf. But then all text would have to be visible since this looks basically like a screen capture.
So then only option would be to export entire database and sort out relevant zettels - or manual copy/paste from Notion?
It really does.
Let me say, you inspired me big time.
Later I need to drag&drop my new note into the table
OR
As above, but
Does that resonate with you guys or am I missing something? Suggestions?
Why Notion might not be the right approach to Zettelkasten Methodology
If I'm not mistaken here, The Zettelkasten has - for a very good reason - the following organizational structure (scroll down to the image say, at the end of the third into the Post)
And here are the shortcomings
What are your thoughts? I can't wait to hear back on you.
Because I appreciate you thoughts I include the link to my Notion-Page 😎
Hm... I don't think your critique pertains to Notion as a tool but to digital tools in general where searching and tagging are simple.
But was Luhmann's approach really superior? I don't think so. It more looks like the easiest thing to do while being stuck with paper. So we should not fall prey to an "appeal to nature": just because it was natural to Luhmann we should stick to how he did it.
Let's not kid ourselves: To express a tree in a single identifier is just, well, a kludge ;-)
The "right" way to express trees is, well, as trees, ie. with nodes and links between nodes. Or by nesting nodes inside other nodes.
Luhmann's identifier scheme is a way to express nesting first (without physically nesting notes). But he also used identifiers as references - thereby creating not only a tree, but a more free-form graph of zettels.
If you like, you can nest zettels in Notion, too. Just create pages inside of pages. That's even better than Luhmann's approach because it truly creates a tree. And then you can create references across branches in Notion with @-references (our outright page URL links).
And then you can open the tree of pages on the left to actually see it. Much better than in Luhmann's zettelkasten.
No, sorry, I don't think we're missing any mysterious property of Luhmann's zettelkasten. He just made the best of the limited tools he had at hand.
I do see your point and couldn't agree more with the statement, that nested pages might be the approach Luhmann would have taken if he could
.
The one thing I wish Notion would be able to do is: Backlinking.
Why I'm telling you this? Because RoamReaserch blew me out of the water. Without further ado, check it out for yourself and tell me what you think, will you?
Thank you for all your thoughts and advice, really appreciate it. Have a great day.
@jburkhard There are no backlinks in Notion? Hm... How about this:
In the zettelkasten each zettel can reference any number of other zettels - and at the same time is listed in those with a backlink.
See how Parent points to Child (Referenced Zettels property) - and Child automatically points back to Parent (Backlinks property).
This way you can weave a web of zettels. (The only drawback: it has to be done with properties; automatic backlinks cannot be created with @ refercences.)
How's that?
Roam is looking pretty cool. But it's still in research. I won't trust it my main zettelkasten, I guess ;-) But maybe in a couple of months... Who knows? Thx for the tip!
Luhmann's approach is a proven one. This is one of the main issues with digital appraoches to note taking an similar problems. Quite often they are theory-diven with no true evidence at all. To copy a successful person is way better than following a theory: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
I am a Zettler
@Sascha New evidence and experiences has to come from somewhere. I don't see why there should be a dogma regarding what can and can't be tried. I've too foregone ID'ing every note and so found I don't miss anything, albeit I can't back up my claims with an output of multiple books.
There is a very big difference between stating that you try something that will deviate from a way that is proven by success based on a theory and making a claim based on speculation (this is what theory without evidence is).
In this forum, I try to keep it overly clean in this regard. There is too much speculation and a lot of overconfidence that misleads many beginners. I don't care about it a lot. But I try to keep this forum clean of careless claims because I am responsible here.
As a trainer, I come across a lot of claims. Most of them have in common that they don't messure what they claim to achieve. If measurement is taken it is inacurate (e.g. listing positive testimonals with ignoring the success to failure ratio) most of the time. The same is true in this field. In private, I talk a lot about this. Just to get it out of my system.
Some people tried to convince me to debunk such things. But I won't because I have no interest although I have a bliss to watch flame wars.. 
But this is the reason why I can come across a bit harsh.
I am a Zettler
@Sascha Sorry if I enticed a flamewar. Definitely not my intention
this forum has, since I found it, been one of the nicest places I've found in a long time.
A particularly good point in your post is with regard to measuring outcomes. It is challenging because in so much as a Zettelkasten is an aid to writing, users of it will have completely different goals in mind: some work in different field, some write books etc. etc. Perhaps the best recourse is to have a peer to discuss your efforts/mentor. This is going off-topic from the original thread topic
@henrikenggaard I don't think you started a "flamewar". The thread went off rails before that. And that's sad.
A perfectly no-nonsense, focused, friendly thread was unnecessarily turned into a meta-discussion. And why? Just because I was doubting that Luhmann had invented some perfect system? Are musings not allowed? Is skepticism not wanted? Is Luhmann a saint? I hope not.
I disagree with what @Sascha said: "Luhmann's approach is a proven one." The simple reason: I don't see any proof.
So what does "proof" mean in this context other than "a couple of people got satisfying results from applying Luhmann's approach to the best of their understanding"?
And that's perfectly fine with me. Whoever is happy by "copying a successful person" is enviable in my opinion.
But, please, don't make that a mantra or worse, a dogma. Many a master probably has started out by copying another master. But in the end... a master always transcends his teachers. Which does not - in my view - mean he becomes better than them, but independent of them.
Is there only one Yoga in the world? Hardly. Is there only one Karate in the world? Hardly. There is only one set of physical laws which cannot be denied by any Karate or Yoga school. But within the framework of physical laws "anything goes" which serves the purpose. And that is a matter of experience and also taste, I guess.
So, should there be only one, canonical way of organizing zettels? I don't think so. Has Luhmann invented the one and only system for best organizing zettels? I don't think so (and I cannot image Luhmann claiming such thing).
I find it very sad that this triviality "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." had to be cited. To me that sounds like an utterance from some guild master from the 14th century. And we know why they designed their rules like they did.
I thought this was a forum to explore (!) ways of organizing knowledge in the spirit of Luhmann. For that I don't think the moderator of this forum has more responsibility than to keep everyone somewhat focused and of course friendly (which does not mean unanimous).
Exploration to me means trying out new (!) ways of doing something. And before trying out new ways probably discussing ideas (!). Or are ideas too much speculation, too much theory?
Well, in my experience ideas/theories lead to experiments. And experiments might be deviations from what has been tried before. And they might support the idea or don't deliver expected results.
Thus: Theory informs practice - and practice informs theory. It's a co-evolution! Advancement in a skill needs both. It's not either-or, but as-well-as.
And how much theory is "good"? That probably depends on the context/topic and also is a personal matter. Maybe some don't like much theory, and that's fine with me. But maybe I like more of it? That should be fine, too. Or not?
In my posting I speculated about how Luhmann (like everyone) was just a "child of his times". He (like everyone) was limited by available technology. He could not even have done experiments with digital tools like we have at our disposal today. So he could not have contrasted his approach with a pure digital approach - and have found that his was superior to what could be done today with tools like Notion or Roam Research or The Brain or Dropbox Paper or Bear Writer or just Sublime.
And why would that be bad? It was inevitable and Luhmann did great things with his approach, his tool. I'm thankful for that.
But what I don't derive from his personal success is reverence or the need to stick to his approach.
The laws of phyiscs are unchanged, how our brains are working probably also hasn't changed much. But I guess there is a lot of room for improvement as to how we organize our knowledge with an ever changing set of technologies and tools. Most closely sticking to an approach from the mid of the last century does not sound like a lasting recipe for success to me.
But do your own experiments :-)
No, you didn't. Perhaps, my English swallowed my humor.
In my opinion, this what makes any field problematic. If you don't measure with precision you can't make any claims about the quality of your actions. Sometimes, I have the feeling that everything is about efficiency and such things. But it is perfectly fine to say that one is happier in such and such a way. Not the most precise measurement but still valid if that is your goal.
You seem more aggrevated that you are challenged. It is not about Luhmann being a saint. It is about your statements that are founded on speculation and that such things need to be challenged and uncovered as speculation. Your "challenge" just is a "it looks like". This is an unfounded claim. And since your are not some saint you can be challenged.
You seem not to understand what "proof" means. So, I'll clarify:
Success is one of the strongest tests that "prove" the quality of something in practice.
This is a strawman. Challenge everything you want. There is no dogma here. It is about how you challenge. Challenging something proven (not in the mathematical sense. "Bewährt" not "Bewiesen" for the Germans) with some weak speculation is a problem when you promote it.
It is nice that you mention Karate. In the world of martial arts the same game was played which is played in this field. Everybody made claims about this punch working that way and that kick working like such and such. But when the UFC came, a hard wake up call was made. And (not surprisingly) the mixed martial artist started to look more and more similar.
Many claims (like some of yours) are not about the physics but about kicks and punches working or not working. They are unfounded speculation. It is fine to speculate. But then be a bit humble and clear about the nature of speculation.
Proving the point of the phrase. It is not a triviality but a major pit fall. At least in practice. In theory, however, it is just a triviality.
Thanks for your thoughts and the opportunity to clarify: Speculation and thought experiments are one piece of the puzzle. This forum offers plattform to that. It offers not something like a safe space where speculations don't get challenged or nobody gets reminded that there is something that is proven to work and other things are risky speculations. There are quite some people who want results. And there are quite some people who look in this forum for guidance. Those people need clarity.
You are speculating some non-proven theory, complaining about being challenged while at the same time claiming that challenging ideas is what the forum is about.
Your ideas about the responsibility of moderators of this forum are wrong.
I am a Zettler
Since @Sascha asked me via dm to answer his posting let me comply by saying:
I haven't answered due to a simple principle: Whenever someone bluntly tells me in a social medium like this "You are wrong." (as in "Your ideas about the responsibility of moderators of this forum are wrong.") I simply do not answer since that's not on a level I want to continue on.
I'm sorry, but I'm now leaving this meta-meta conversation for good.
Thanks for the compliance. I don't beat around the bush. I explained to you why you are wrong about the responsiblities of this forum. The rest of my post may remain unchallenged if you wish.
I am a Zettler
@ralfw I am both inspired and intimated.
A few questions:
Just wanting to begin my journey, and not paralyse myself with perfectionism either.
Thank you
My experience is, that using a tool leads to insights you won't be able to get otherwise. Practice uncovers good and bad things of all sorts. Some things are working just fine, others are not. It's the conflicts between reality and your imagination that then can send you on a journey to the next tool (or to find ways to use a tool in a different, better way).
All this practical experience with a tool or a tool belt has to rest on a foundation of theory, in my view. What is it that I want to accomplish? What kind of web of zettels do I want to weave? What kind of support would I like to see from a tool?
These and other questions pop up in my mind to be answered just with a hypothesis.
The hypothesis then is checked by doing an experiment, ie. becoming practical: choosing and using a tool.
Which then leads to insights of some kind, which leads to the next generation of my hypothesis.
To adopt a "solid habit", though, does not depend on a particular zettelkasten tool. It's more a matter of behavior design. Maybe you want to check out the book "Tiny Habits" by BJ Fogg on that. I found that a very insightful read regarding habit formation.
Hm... I don't remember the import process in detail anymore, but my feeling is that it was pretty easy
There where two things, though, I struggled a bit with:
Other than that it was ok to import the .md files.
What do you mean by "dats"?
The images I posted are of zettels not imported from The Archive but added later "natively" in Notion.
Can a file system handle thousands of .md files without getting cluttered? Sure - but it depends on how you structure it using folders. Or if you can provide a different view using some kind of tool looking at the content of the .md files.
Can Notion handle thousands of zettels without getting cluttered? Sure - but it depends on how you structure the workspace using pages (which can also be used like folders) and databases (tables).
If you tag 1000 zettels with the same tag the result is the same in Notion as in any other tool: they show up when you search for the tag
Notion is prepared to carry the load of 10000 zettels as any relational or document database is, I guess. But still you have to find your way to organize the content with the features provided.
What features do Evernote or The Archive provide? What does Notion provide in addition?
Maybe Notion is even lacking something you want - but is shines in some other regard.
I guess you have to try it for yourself. Play around with its features. What I did with Notion could be a starting point - and then you find a way to do it differently and better for your purposes.
I'm using Roam for my zettelkasten now. But I keep my previous zettels in Notion. If need be I can link both ways.
For other purposes I continue to use Notion, however.
That sounds like a helpful attitude. So, start your journey with whatever tool you like - just don't assume it's the last tool you'll ever use for your zettelkasten
Bon voyage!
Hey @ralfw , to lower my risk as first time user of The Archive and previous user of Notion pre-starting Zettelkasten (my first official day) is it easy / possible to switch to Notion down the line if I so choose?
@kmichail: I don't know if you'd call it "easy" ;-) But there is a way from The Archive to Notion. That's what I did: I imported all my The Archive .md files as entries of a Notion table.
But there's always a loss in such conversions, I'd say. You've to be ok with that. Or be ok with using multiple tools. Like I'm using Roam now and have used Notion for my Zettelkasten. But I'm not intending to move Notion zettels to Roam.
Prepare yourself to find you own way through the evolving landscape of tools and approaches. Betting on one of them for the rest of your life to me is a premature optimization.