Forum Posts Feed
Obsidian vs Logseq conundrum
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Tumbleweed
Mar 15, 2024 at 01:41 PM
Wow, thanks @tberni the saved queries are indeed an amazing and powerful feature of Logseq! It’s really akin to UltraRecall “Saved searches”, Zoot “Smart folders” or InfoQube grid criteria. I’m still leaning toward going with Logseq as my daily journal and PKM, as well as for articles - the automatic intertwining is amazing and frictionless. And having the Contents open as you write Daily Notes, to add new topics of interest, is just an amazingly simple and powerful way to make sense of the structure - and they can also hold queries.
Regarding Tangent, it looks like a “light” version of Obsidian. Without the block structure and auto cross-linking of Logseq, I don’t know why it would be needed.
Logseq is clunky though (although that could easily be improved). The results of Live query, or a [[]] tag page you create with Linked and Unlinked References, is just very blocky (pun slightly intended). The Obsidian plugin “Influx” for instance gives much more easily results to visualize. But no Unlinked References!
Obsidian is so tantalizing every time I try it. Looks amazing, tons of power and plugins to do everything. Influx mimics Logseq cross-linking to some degree. BUT, there are two massive problems:
1) Lack of block structure means either just using Daily notes (which is fairly messy) or organizing everything (which gives friction)
2) The organizational structure of folders/links/tags leads to too many organizational choices (for me anyway). Too much time and thought to the system instead of just using it.
Hence, Logseq seems like the obvious choice, for me anyway.
Posted by Lucas
Mar 15, 2024 at 02:48 PM
@Tumbleweed
Sounds like LogSeq is a good fit. But regarding what you mentioned about Obsidian, I assume you have tried tweaking the settings for the Backlinks core plugin, including the “Backlink in document” setting? “Unlinked mentions” should show up.
Also, regarding organization, if you haven’t already seen it, you might be interested in:
https://github.com/makary-s/obsidian-metafolders
Posted by Tumbleweed
Mar 15, 2024 at 05:07 PM
Hi, yes thanks I saw metafolders in a post on the Obsidian forums. I’m a bit wary of replying on 3rd party plug-ins for my methodology. Also, I am just not sure I want to have to have an organizational method, it’s kind of why I’m moving from UltraRecall and InfoQube (which is awesome by the way).
I can’t get Unlinked mentions to work properly. Or Influx, it just disappears a lot for no reason. Have blocks built in really means all notes can be from Daily Journal with no regard for organization. And if I import a doc or larger website clipping, then I can have a standalone note or enter it in Daily even - and let the linking of topics occur automatically.
These are the two reasons why I’m getting more sold on using Logseq. I tend to use a system for a while, get hung up on limitations in the setup or methodology, CRIMP hard, try to fix it, and move to another software. Hopefully Logseq will alleviate this!
Posted by Tumbleweed
Apr 11, 2024 at 02:38 PM
Sometimes the only solution is not to play.
I realized that Logseq was not operating as I wanted it to, namely putting two links in one block would not link them together, but rather link each to the block parent. Although this is by design, it means that creating noteworthy links is a massive chore. I question the design choice, as the block centric view seems to me to take care of the “accidental linking” phenomena. Just add multiple links to new blocks under the main, and make new blocks for new thoughts or insights. But alas this is not implemented.
Even the way I was trying to do things had some fatigue in trying to keep linking things. And when the links became substantial, I couldn’t see them well on the topics page, there was a large amount of scrolling so getting the value of linking was difficult. Another substantial issue was adding scientific articles via PDF, where all the many co-authors got added to the graph, making it useless after just 10 papers or so since the author lists would overpower my actual entries. Furthermore, the tools to rapidly cite based on your PDF notes are suspiciously absent. Obsidian wouldn’t solve any of these issues, unfortunately.
So I made the radical decision to go back to a more traditional outliner. In these, I can see MUCH more information at once and actually get a broad overview much faster. It can be made into a Zettlekasten with links, which should be more deliberate.
My choice for what to use came down to this: I want to quickly and easily document my work - there are other uses, but this is the one that has the most friction. I have active licenses to UltraRecall, Zoot, RightNote, InfoQube, DoogiePim (V3), Heptabase, EssentialPim, Obsidian/Logseq (free), and have previously used Mybase and several others.
However, I decided to CRIMP and found a new program that is ideal for this use case: MyInfo 8. It is so fast and useful for my purposes! I’ll make a review to point out the main reasons for using it and the few quibbles. To be clear, I’m also going to use EssentialPim for email, tasks and meeting notes, and Citavi for PDFs and academic research.
Posted by Dormouse
Apr 12, 2024 at 01:05 PM
Tumbleweed wrote:
It can be made into a Zettlekasten
>with links, which should be more deliberate.
>
I was never happy with zettelkasten in Obsidian etc.
Partly notes inclined towards long. The links carry no indication of a train of thought and, in practice, links on a note can reflect very distant trains of thought. And convenient workflows are rarely zettelkasten related.
And when it comes to it I came down on the folgezettel being important side of the debate.
And a traditional outline/mindmap automatically has a folgezettel structure. So long as the placement of a note is done with zettelkasten deliberation it’s all good, and there’s an inclination to short notes rather than long. And links and backlinks can still be done.