Would you please help me understand what is the need for A, B, C tags in Logseq? It looks like it might have something to do with task management
It’s 3 levels for priority
When you create todos you can assign one of these priorities, then later you can do queries and filter or sort by priority. This kind of stuff.
New to Logseq and its emerging documentation, it took a surprising amount of time to find these mentions in the official logseq documentation. Hope its useful to other newcomers also stumped by this feature ambiguity.
Queries>Query Filters>Priorities
The implicate understanding of what A B C stands for is not at all problematic in the western world. The problem is that the interpretation is based on social assumption of logical normativities.
The notional concept of priority is actually quite broad, which i feel was the intent behind the OP’s question (in a manner of speaking).
Personally, i must admit to finding “A B C” to be an effective but quite childish ordering principle. So to reframe the question (if appropriate), is Logseq locked into “A B C” priorities or is there anything much broader planned in the long term?
All the best.
Don’t read too much into #A #B #C, they are mere tags, neither needed nor somehow locked-in (can be safely ignored). They are provided for convenience (mostly for default sorting). With some effort, it is possible to achieve the same functionality with custom tags of your choice.
I was thinking in terms of how an Eisenhower Matrix could be more suitable, but that due to the lacking of formal definition of priority here (to the best of my knowledge), that such may not be implementable, which concerned me. I would not call that reading too much, but thanks for your concern.
Priorities are about filtering and sorting. Logseq doesn’t need a formal definition, because any tag can be used in filtering and sorting. Therefore, simplistic approaches like Eisenhower Matrix are fully implementable and others have already done it:
I do not need that information and regret posting a personal opinion. I will no longer respond.
The point is that Logseq introduced
only after establishing
That also explains the lacking documentation, as well as most other cases of “losing the tree for the forest”. The answer to your original question is that you should not expect the inverse approach. It is indeed a matter of priorities.