Comments

• Mauro

  October 26

  I think they are fairly normal, especially in an early stage.

  Some of my titles:

  • 202509181619-definition-of-direct-address-tables
  • 202510061623-using-induction-to-prove-the-complexity-of-algorithms
  • 202509232012-difficulty-in-a-text-arises-from-the-readers-competency-in-relation-to-the-text
  • 202510011111-determine-what-ideas-are-worthy-to-be-fully-developed
• marick

  October 26

  @Mauro Thank you.
• zettelsan

  October 26

  I've been experimenting with Folgezettel (essentially the numbering scheme Bob Doto introduces in his book) for a while.

  The biggest frustration with this method is organizing top-level categories. Although it claims to be non-hierarchical, it inevitably introduces an order that feels like a hierarchy, no matter what you call it.

  One strength of Folgezettel, as presented in Bob's book, is that it naturally lets relationships emerge. As you create (child) notes, those at the same level of numbering depth effectively cluster around an emergent topic.

  This works well, except for top-level categories. You increment the most significant digit when you encounter a topic unrelated to existing notes, starting a new tree. Later, as your Zettelkasten matures, you might realize a better position for that note based on connections that have developed since it was written. The temptation to refile the note arises, but actually doing so creates all sorts of problems.

  This complexity makes me sympathize with the view that Folgezettel is just a distraction.
• ctietze

  October 27

  @marick At the beginning, it is weird that way. Thanks for the funny Borges reference, I never connected these

  But it won't matter much in the long run as the heterarchy grows and the placement becomes less important. You need to start somewhere, so there's no avoiding weird 'top level' notes for a while, until 'top level' stops being associated with "things that were there first". (I don't use positional, hierarchical ID's for many reasons discussed on this forum.)

  Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
• baux

  October 27

  bob doto in his book absolutely doesn't suggest use of "semantic hierarchy" but a "train of idea sequence style. I took some time to understand this point, hierarchy isn't semanticaly relevant. Hub and structure note are sematically relevant in bob doto zettelkasten declination

  Maurizio Boriani
  GPG key: 0xCC0FBF8F
• Sascha

  October 28

  @baux said:
  bob doto in his book absolutely doesn't suggest use of "semantic hierarchy" but a "train of idea sequence style. I took some time to understand this point, hierarchy isn't semanticaly relevant. Hub and structure note are sematically relevant in bob doto zettelkasten declination

  @marick Is making a different statement from Bob suggesting a hierarchy. To stealman your position a little bit: Bob repeatedly insist that Folgezettel mustn't be seen as some form of hierarchy.

  @marick is making a factual statement:

  @marick
  I'm following Bob Doto's advice and using Luhmann's numbering scheme, which in effect imposes a tree structure on top of a more free-form linking structure.

  So, while Bob is making an either a possibilistic statement ("doesn't necessary mean"), a normative statement ("mustn't be used for"), or (which would be the appropriate case) both to make his point, the other position is that Folgezettel does in fact impose a hierarchical structure.

  You may read this article to explore the relationship of Folgezettel and hierarchy: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/understanding-hierarchy-translating-folgezettel/

  I am a Zettler
• marick

  October 28 edited October 28

  When I was referring to tree structure, I meant no more than that:

  1. Every note (except a topmost one) will have a "parent" node.
  2. Most notes will have "siblings".

  A hierarchy, I think, implies something more: that there are rules determining where a new note should go – rules more rigid than "it seemed like an interesting linkage to make at the time."

  I like using the 1.3a3b style as a failsafe measure. Some times I'll put notes in the notebox without adding enough links. Yes, over time, encountering that note again, I'll adjust the links on it. In the meantime, the tree structure means I'll (almost) always have implicit links to neighbors that stand a good-enough chance of being interestingly related to the note I'm looking at.

  And a habit of running through my top levels before I decide where to put the note helps keep me from lazily making the first link on the new note something obvious.

  I've made too many mistakes in my life to depend on myself always doing my best. "Suspenders and belt," we say in the States.