I've seen it suggested before that while 'tasks' need to be well-structured, reference/notes don't.
I like the idea of not trying to store notes in a hierarchy, but using search and/or tags to try and reference (or discover relations between) notes.
I like the article's emphasis on "how do I want to access this later?". TBH Sometimes I've looked up previous bookmarks or notes, and they didn't have the keywords or tags I was expecting.
I'd suggest https://github.com/EFLS/zetteldeft as another project which more/less supports some of the workflow suggested in the article.
That said, yeah, I do prefer pen and paper for worklog notes.
> TBH Sometimes I've looked up previous bookmarks or notes, and they didn't have the keywords or tags I was expecting.
I also use a personal set of scripts for Zettelkasten (in combination with rofi) and I do encounter this sometimes. I've come to the conclusion that it's not a large problem: as long as you find the notes you're looking for most of the time, it's good.
I think the problem of always finding all notes that are relevant to each search is too hard and has diminishing returns. It's best to simply avoid it by relaxing your expectations.
Part of the Zettelkasten philosophy is that it requires you to actively work on links between notes. Some notes are simply forgotten, Luhmann (the original Zettelkasten master) used to say, unless they are indexed into your system.
Yes, and I do actively work on the links. My point is there is no need for perfection here. Good enough is good enough.
If some of the notes are forgotten, so be it. I place my requirements and expectations on the system as a whole, not on each particular note. If the overall system is useful and serves me well, I don't care if some of the notes are forgotten and I've reduced my workload and note loss anxiety by several orders of magnitude. This is what I meant by diminishing returns.
However, with full-text search, it's hard to imagine how any note could be forgotten completely, unless it contains no text at all. This is something Luhmann did not have.
I like the idea of not trying to store notes in a hierarchy, but using search and/or tags to try and reference (or discover relations between) notes.
I like the article's emphasis on "how do I want to access this later?". TBH Sometimes I've looked up previous bookmarks or notes, and they didn't have the keywords or tags I was expecting. I'd suggest https://github.com/EFLS/zetteldeft as another project which more/less supports some of the workflow suggested in the article.
That said, yeah, I do prefer pen and paper for worklog notes.