Comments

• iylock

  February 26

  Welcome to the forum
  There are many experts here, so you'll find them helpful.
  There are also many articles about Folgezettel on this forum and blog, which you might find helpful.

  By the way, I'm curious why you think Folgezettel is more suitable for you. If you're planning on doing digital Zettelkasten, I recommend the Structure Note suggested by Sascha.

  I first tried Zettelkasten on paper for about two years, using Folgezettel. However, Folgezettel doesn't allow for flexible changes to the structure, which makes it difficult to maintain the system in the long term. Once you create a structure, you can't change it.

  Rather, you can create a separate space for creating structures, write only the structure there, and assign individual notes a unique ID for reference. In other words, create a structure note and then create the structure of each individual note there. This allows you to maintain the benefits of Folgezettel while also making it easier to change the structure. As your thinking expands, there will naturally come a time when your structure needs to change, and that's when Folgezettel becomes a disadvantage.

  Furthermore, I don't think there's any reason to use Folgezettel in a digital environment unless you're using paper. My experience aligns perfectly with what Sascha said.

  @Sascha said:

  @harr said:

  @zettelsan said:
  This has some implication on Folgezettel in Luhmann's style vs. Bob Doto's style.

  Bob Doto's recommendation is compatible with Luhmann's technique. Doto writes in his 2024 book:

  > Folgezettel forces you to connect newly imported ideas.
  > > Aside from scanability, using folgezettel can also influence your note-making practice. This is particularly apparent when converting notes from fleeting to main notes. Forced to try and establish at least one connection between new notes and those already stored in the zettelkasten begins the process of creating trains of thought and making meaning of your captures. >

  In practice, you will amass quite a lot of loose association and not so many trains of thought. Luhmann's ZK is a very good showcase for that.

  In my personal opinion, I recommend the Structure Note suggested by Sascha.
  Nevertheless, you'll find a variety of helpful opinions about Folgezettel in this forum.
• wjenkins81

  February 26 edited February 26

  @Skandar said:
  I've decided to use the folgezettel, which is more suitable for me.

  I'm curious here, if you think folgezettel is a different kind of system, when it's actually referring to a note that can be considered an interesting 'next note' to consider. Folgezettel can be translated as 'follow-on note'. It means that a note would come after an earlier note as a kind of extension of the idea.

  For example, say I'm making notes about computer programming. I might have a general note about why it's good to write comments in a piece of code to help myself and others to understand it later. At some other time, I've made a note about a recommended style to write comments for a particular programming language.

  In this example, it doesn't matter which note was written first. The language-specific note is a natural extension, or 'follow-on' to the more general note about commenting. So I would link the 'recommended style' note as a 'Folgezettel' to the general one, i.e. continuing from a general idea to a more specific idea.

  The Luhmann way of doing it was affected by him using paper notes in boxes. But if you're using a digital system, you can be much more flexible about it with links and not worry about the note ID.

  6. Furthermore, in Bob Doto's book, I saw information not to include old notes from before the creation of the zettelkasten in the zettelkasten, only new ones. I admit this doesn't make sense to me. Is there a specific reason I'm not aware of?

  I'm not aware of this. Do you have a page number or heading/section name for that? I still have his book and would like to check what he said.

  But in fact, I didn't move any old notes into my Zettelkasten. It was such an old way of thinking that I struggled to convert my old notes to the new interlinked-notes method the Zettelkasten uses.
• Skandar

  February 26

  @iylock said:
  Welcome to the forum

  The articles and topics I saw weren't entirely clear to me regarding the questions I described, so I figured it was worth asking
  I have a feeling I'll either gain a lot from folgezettel or lose nothing. That's why I decided this would be the right method for me, due to:
  -Increasing friction in note-taking, which improves my retention of this information and increases its importance.
  -The ability to intuitively find complex topics without any additional tools (graphs, structure notes, etc.).
  -This adds another layer of complexity based on thought processes, which works well with structured notes (after all, Luhmann himself used hub notes) and which I prefer. I only suspect some advantages here, but this needs to be tested.
  -The ease of searching for notes from a specific tree branch based on Fogelzettel is also an additional advantage.

  I'll probably only know for sure what the advantages and disadvantages of this numbering method are after several thousand notes. In any case, I like the idea, although I admit that initially I was more inclined to use identifiers based on time and structured notes, but ultimately I decided to test Folgezettel. I don't want to debate the superiority of one method or the other; I'm curious about these questions

  Well, once I've taken a few thousand notes, I'll be able to determine whether the Fogelzettel is working for me or not It would be best to conduct at least two Zettelkasten (one with Fogelzettel and the other with only structured notes) for a test, but I'm not really up for that, haha.

  So, since you've used the Folgezettel, maybe you could answer questions 2 and 3?
• Skandar

  February 26

  @wjenkins81 said:

  @Skandar said:
  I've decided to use the folgezettel, which is more suitable for me.

  I'm curious here, if you think folgezettel is a different kind of system, when it's actually referring to a note that can be considered an interesting 'next note' to consider. Folgezettel can be translated as 'follow-on note'. It means that a note would come after an earlier note as a kind of extension of the idea.

  I admit I don't know why you're explaining that fogelzettel isn't a system, since I explicitly wrote that by "system" I meant zettelkasten (I didn't say anything about considering fogelzettel a different system or some incredibly distinct variation of this system). "To clarify, I only recently learned about zettelkasten and really liked the idea of ​​this note-taking system." And speaking of folgezettel (in the passage you quoted), I explained that I was interested in the identification method used by Luhmann, and in that context I'm asking further questions.

  From what I see, it was also after the afterword, where the frequently asked questions were answered. One of the questions was whether old notes could be used. So you'll find it practically at the very end
• iylock

  12:22AM edited 12:57AM

  @Skandar said:

  @iylock said:
  Welcome to the forum

  The articles and topics I saw weren't entirely clear to me regarding the questions I described, so I figured it was worth asking
  I have a feeling I'll either gain a lot from folgezettel or lose nothing. That's why I decided this would be the right method for me, due to:
  -Increasing friction in note-taking, which improves my retention of this information and increases its importance.
  -The ability to intuitively find complex topics without any additional tools (graphs, structure notes, etc.).
  -This adds another layer of complexity based on thought processes, which works well with structured notes (after all, Luhmann himself used hub notes) and which I prefer. I only suspect some advantages here, but this needs to be tested.
  -The ease of searching for notes from a specific tree branch based on Fogelzettel is also an additional advantage.

  I'll probably only know for sure what the advantages and disadvantages of this numbering method are after several thousand notes. In any case, I like the idea, although I admit that initially I was more inclined to use identifiers based on time and structured notes, but ultimately I decided to test Folgezettel. I don't want to debate the superiority of one method or the other; I'm curious about these questions

  Well, once I've taken a few thousand notes, I'll be able to determine whether the Fogelzettel is working for me or not It would be best to conduct at least two Zettelkasten (one with Fogelzettel and the other with only structured notes) for a test, but I'm not really up for that, haha.

  So, since you've used the Folgezettel, maybe you could answer questions 2 and 3?

  I think following your intuition is a good approach! I think there are advantages to trying things out yourself and deciding.

  I'm more of an end user, so I don't have a systematic argument, but I'll answer your question based on my experience and my opinion.

  Question 2
  It might be easier to understand if you think of it as a parent node and a child node.

  For example, there are notes 1, 2, 3...
  Turn 1: If the new note is related to 1, write it as 1/a.
  Turn 2: If the new note is related to 1, write it as 1/b.
  P.S. If you run out of space (on paper), create a 1/c note and continue writing.
  Turn 3: If the new note is related to 1/b, write it as 1/b1.
  Turn 4: If the new note is related to 1/b, write it as 1/b2.
  Turn 5: If the new note is related to 1/a, write it as 1/a1.
  Turn 6: If you want to write a more specific explanation for 1/b1, write 1/b1a.

  Let me give you a concrete example. The square brackets are IDs.
  [1]: Skill mastery is achieved through repetition.
  [1/a]: Gilbert Ryle divided knowledge into "knowing what" and "knowing how."
  [1/a1]: The ability to clearly express "knowing how" in words requires separate training. Being able to hit home runs doesn't make you a good teacher, and being able to explain the theory of hitting home runs doesn't guarantee you'll hit home runs.
  [1/a1a]: In that sense, criticizing someone who isn't particularly good at soccer for coaching a team overlooks this point.
  [1/b]: Simultaneous interpreter Masao Kunihiro said that the way to learn a language is to read aloud hundreds of times.
  [1/b1]: Masao Kunihiro said that English grammar is naturally acquired by reading aloud hundreds of times and memorizing it. He said that grammar study only needs to be done when necessary.
  [1/b1a]: This is consistent with my experience. When I practiced guitar, I memorized entire songs, so I naturally learned harmony.
  [1/b2]: Masao Kunihiro said not to worry about pronunciation when reading hundreds of times.
  [1/b2a]: When I teach guitar, I have found that learning is more effective when I teach students to first get their hands in that position and then learn to produce the correct sound, rather than focusing on producing the correct sound from the beginning.
  [1/c]: The most important thing for repetition is desire—a clear goal and desire.

  For reference, I wrote the Folgezettel numbers as follows:
  1, 2, 3
  1/1, 1/2, 1/3
  1/1a, 1/1b, 1/1c
  1/1a1, 1/1a2, 1/1a3
  1/1a1a, 1/1a1b, 1/1a1c
  This is how I've numbered them, but you can use whatever method you prefer.

  In fact, continuing to expand like this only increases complexity. Initially, related topics are grouped together, naturally forming a structure and defining boundaries. However, as you mentioned in Question 3, notes on the same topic or interest can end up in different areas. This leads to the areas of the same topic or interest becoming more fragmented, and this becomes even more so as the system grows.

  You mentioned that "The ease of searching for notes from a specific tree branch based on Fogelzettel is also an additional advantage.", but this is where the problem arises. Finding notes is no longer intuitive. That means you have to rely on hub notes. However, if even hub notes reach their management limitations, you'll eventually need to consolidate these scattered areas into a hub note. Ultimately, this is what Sascha called a Structure note.

  Moreover, Structure Notes allow you to write content like regular notes, beyond just the structure itself. You can include a rough outline of the structure, create new knowledge based on it, or even use the Structure Note as a knowledge note(content note), linking it to other notes or inserting it into other structures. In this sense, it's quite natural to use. Therefore, Structure Notes can hardly be considered an additional tool. (This only applies if you claim hub notes aren't an additional tool. )

  I used to use Obsidian because I liked its graph view, but eventually I returned to a plain text editor. This is because even a graph view becomes useless when the amount of data increases significantly. Many YouTube videos of Obsidian graph views show that while they look flashy and cool, they're not practical for real-world use.

  In my experience, Structure notes are sufficient. The advantage of Structure notes is that they allow you to attach individual notes to various structures. This allows you to use full-text search to identify which structure each note belongs to. (Structure notes can be easily identified even when stored alongside individual notes by simply adding "structure note" to the note title. Sascha seems to use "qq1," "qq2," "qq3," etc., while I prefix my note titles with "ffd." Furthermore, the master structure note, or the top-level structure note, is prefixed with "ffds.")

  You also mentioned that friction in the note-taking process improves information retention and increases its importance. I recommend reading Sascha's blog post on friction. As you mentioned, using Folgezettel forces you to assign locations to your notes, which forces you to constantly think about their connections to previous information. However, as you can see in the example above, Folgezettel relies on a single structure. Therefore, if you try to systematically research a topic or interest and continue, new notes(loosely related but not directly related) that come in between can distract you. The context is also disrupted. As a result, as Sascha mentioned, you often end up with loose associations and lose sight of a clear flow of thought. (Of course, this is true in my experience.)

  In fact, using multiple structure notes already allows you to memorize and organize the various structures in your head. This allows you to easily recall the content of other structure notes when creating new notes or working on one structure note, eliminating the need for Folgezettel. However, using Folgezettel can actually increase confusion as the system grows (i.e., as the number of notes increases), because it lacks systematic organization.

  Information prominence can be enhanced by reorganizing it into structure notes as the number of notes increases. This process of organizing and selecting notes further enhances your knowledge.

  Question 3
  I think you should follow your intuition. I'll base my answer on Luhmann's writing. (Quoting Sascha's blog post)

  By creating links, we can, without too much work or paper invested, solve the problem of “multiple storage”. Using this technique, it is not important where a new note is placed. If there is more than one possible place the decision is arbitrary since the context can be captured by links. (My emphasis, my translation of Luhmann (1993): Kommunikation mit Zettelkästen; for a more word-by-word translation by Manfred Kühn, see here)

  Post edited by iylock at 12:57AM