I’m running into a limitation of my technical understanding here. All I can rely on is my own understanding and use of Logseq as a graph tool, and I wouldn’t know why I would want to create (strict) hierarchies in my graph. But, to each their own.
I know @cldwalker is interested in reworking the namespaces, so I hope he’ll have a look at the proposal.
But these are not more strict hierarchies than the ones we already have. It’s just some helping UI/UX.
At the moment when you look at the graph you only see one type of relation, “reference”. We want to embed more information into relations between pages by using properties (already possible) and browse/display it (what we are proposing).
For example you want say [[Linear Algebra]] is a branch of [[Algebra]] that is a branch of [[Mathematics]].
At the moment you have three possible approaches
[[Mathematics/Algebra/Linear Algebra]]
- [[Mathematics]]
- [[Algebra]]
- [[Linear Algebra]]
branch-of relation Algebra.md
branch-of:: [[Mathematics]]
Linear Algebra.md
branch-of:: [[Algebra]]
We are proposing better UI/UX for the third approach that could solve two issues often mentioned by users: graph is a mess to navigate and namespaces are hard to manage.
HIERARCHIES NEED NOT BE STRICT
IT’S MORE LIKE AN “OUTLINER-STYLE” MOC HUB
IT’S THE SAME OUTLINER PATTERN - AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION
SHORTCOMINGS OF MY INITIAL NAMESPACE-BASED EXAMPLE
In the example/screencap I shared, I used a hard-coded scheme based on namespaces. That may be distracting. It may make it seem like I only wanted this for namespaces.
Technically, it’s possible hierarchies could be created more flexibly, using queries and page properties, which alex0 figured out (as I describe below).
But for my own inadequate, limited, purely namespace-based example, I ran a query something like this:
And that returned something like this:
I WISH I COULD EDIT THAT RETURNED OUTLINE
But I can’t edit that outline, to add headers, and text blocks to explain what’s down each branch. That would make this a true MOC hub.
More ambitiously, it would be cool to move and rename pages here, and have those structural changes cascade through my graph.
Basically, Logseq won’t let us do to namespaced pages what it lets us do to blocks on pages. (Unless we do it manually).
I just want to keep doing my “Logseq thing”, over this higher level of organization.
IT’S ALREADY A FEATURE IN DEVELOPMENT
BEING "OUTLINE-STYLE MOC-FRIENDLY IS A GOOD DIFFERENTIATOR
COMBINING NAMESPACE AND QUERY-BASED HIERARCHIES IN THE MOC HUB
NOT AN ANTI-PATTERN (NECESSARILY)
tl;dr - I’M just saying that Parent-Child context matters, at a higher level than just on the page.
If this higher level of outlining was forced and exhaustive, it would be an anti-pattern
Since it’s not, it’s actually just a combination of the main pattern (indented outline) and a secondary pattern (namespaces) that is already supported
People would just have to be advised, as Nick Milo does for Obsidian users, that trying to make MOCs exhaustive is a bad idea.
MOCs are accelerators, not organizers.
It’s wayfinding for people who think about their personal information topically, instead of by today’s date.
SUPPORT HUMANS, NOT IDEOLOGIES
NAVIGATION FREES UP MENTAL RESOURCES
ENJOY THE MAGIC, BUT CHOOSE YOUR STARTING POINT
PRAGMATISM OVER PURISM
Hi @Ramses. I wrote a hopefully simple to understand introduction on why we need a way to organize pages differently than by just namespaces: Knowledge Management for Tags / Tag Hierarchies
This request is not about enforcing “strict” hierarchies in the graph (in the sense of being forced into a folder structure).
It is about organizing a huge graph by adding relationships between pages.
This would enable many additional ways to locate a page, e.g. faceted searches and hierarchical browsing that is used e.g. on Amazon’s website or in a library catalogue.
This request fits very naturally into Logseq’s data model with some small extensions to the search, as suggested in @alex0’s feuture request he mentioned above: Specify and display relations between pages/tags
It would be great to get feedback on these requests, as some of us consider them to be absolutely essential to organize larger graphs. Currently the “best” practice recommended to deal with e.g. Zotero imports is to just delete nodes to simplify the graph. That can’t be the intended use.
@boisjere Can you expand on this? I can’t quite follow what you’re doing here, but I’d like to be able to replicate it.
Well @knowlost - first you have to do the somewhat tedious task of renaming all your files - or at least, all the ones you want to appear in your hierarchy.
You have to put them all in the same namespace, under one top-level name. I used the term “Hierarchies” for this top-level name in one sample I shared. I used the term “All Namespaces” in another. If you like the idea of Maps Of Content, you could write “MOC-Hub” as your top-level term, or “TOC” for Table of Contents, or “Index”, etc.
Then you have to go through and rename all the pages in your graph to put them under that top level name. Right now I’m working on some stuff about fiction writing. So I have ideas like Plot, Theme, Character, Arcs, and types of Arcs, for example.
I’d have to rename the pages like this (using MOC as my top-level name):
MOC/Story-Theory/Theme
MOC/Story-Theory/Arc
MOC/Story-Theory/Arc/Plot-Arc
MOC/Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Readiness-Arc
MOC/Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Damage-Arc
MOC/Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Awakening-Arc
MOC/Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Choice-Arc
It’s ugly. Every page ends up having a fully specified path as its page name. Pages are named according to their breadcrumb trail in the hierarchy you want to build. It won’t scale very far.
Anyhow, doing all that will give you an MOC page. Navigate to that page. There, you just type the following query on a line: {{namespace [[MOC]]}}. It seems like a self-referential query, because you are asking it to return all the pages beneath and including it, but then displaying it “on itself”. In truth, I think the query just returns what it returns, and doesn’t care where it’s called from.
That will give you a tree of all the pages in the MOC namespace. Then you add that page to your favourites, and you have essentially the kind of functionality I’ve been squealing about all over this forum.
You could segment your graph into several namespace-based MOCs. So you could create an MOCs page, but not use it in any namespaces.
Then you could use those God-awful breadcrumb-style page names, using several root-level names. So I could do:
Story-Theory/Theme
Story-Theory/Arc
Story-Theory/Arc/Plot-Arc
Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Readiness-Arc
Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Damage-Arc
Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Awakening-Arc
Story-Theory/Arc/Character-Arc/Choice-Arc
…and…
History/Canada/Ontario/Suburbs/Car-Culture
History/Canada/Ontario/Suburbs/Car-Culture/Canadian-Tire
History/Canada/Ontario/Southwestern-Ontario/Memoirs
History/USA/1940s/Film-Culture
History/USA/140s/Sex-and-Gender
Then on my MOC page, I could put two queries:
{{namespace [[History]]}}
…and on a separate line…
{{namespace [[Story-Theory]]}}
Then I could add the MOCs page to my Favourites like before, and there’d be a few MOCs on it
Nick Milo often says MOCs should not aspire to become exhaustive Tables of Contents. They’re just accelerators to get you into good spots in your graph. So you wouldn’t need to have breadcrumb-style page naming everywhere, just on pages you wanted to index this way.
The advantage of using a namespace-based approach is that the branch in your tree leading up to a page appears in the “Hierarchies” section at the bottom of each page.
However, a page can’t be in two namespaces at once. So my approach doesn’t allow for polyhierarchies, something @gax has written about extensively on this forum.
If we used the properties-based approach @alex0 devised, we could have polyhierarchies, but queries would have to recursively return “parent-of” and “child-of” pages based on those properties. I don’t think that’s on the Logseq development roadmap.
You can also just create an MOCs page, and hand-code the hierarchy, by making a normal outline, then putting only or mostly page names on it - but it won’t auto-update, not will it appear in the nice, salient “Hierarchies” section like the namespace approach enables.
Anyhow, the approach using the {{namespace [[ x ]]}} query is simple to execute in theory. Renaming pages by hand is a pain though.
I’m really enjoying this discussion, even though I barely understand it lol.
Organisation, in Logseq, is what I’m struggling with, as I’ll detail in my next post here on the Learning Sprint.
I particularly like this idea of Logseq differentiating itself from others:
I guess this is the challenge for any 2nd Brain PKM software. Loving this software and am excited about possible future developments:
I just noticed I can move .md files (using a file manager) everywhere in the graph folder (in the root of the graph, in a custom subfolder or a subfolder of /pages) and Logseq just recognize them as they were in /pages. You just need to make sure there aren’t file with the same name in different folders.
Going to link this video onto this thread as I feel it delves into some of these topics
Let me get this straight - when saying that every child page will have a backlink to all the parents in the hierarchy, you aren’t actually talking about namespaces, right? Only that backlinks will appear somewhere as a reference, but to Logseq, this approach does not really impose any hierarchy (unlike using “/” in the name). Correct?
Indeed, I’m talking about Linked References section
Correct
In fact, the “child_of” or “parent_of” relations that define hierarchical structures are semantic relations. Hierarchies are concepts as a set of blocks described by a semantic query.
Greetings.
I’m still rebooting with Logseq and I’ve been struck by your reference to a Telegram bot since I use it a lot.
I know this is not related to this thread, but
Could you, even if it was private, tell me something about that bot or tell me where to find information about it?
Thank you
Hi, this is the bot: GitHub - shady2k/logseq-inbox-telegram-plugin
It’s available as a plugin from Logseq marketplace, so you can install it from there and then follow the instruction in the page above.
It’s a matter of 2 minutes, basically you will create a bot using Telegram, it will provides you with a token and with that your Logseq will be able to access your bot.
Having not used Logseq in awhile, and then going back into my graphs, I have to re-emphasize the value of this point I wrote earlier:
- People need navigational structures because then they can rely on recognition instead of recall to access their info, and procedural rather than declarative memory
- This is especially important if ever Logseq wants to attract a user base that doesn’t necessarily use the tool every single day.
- Those kinds of users would need recognition-based cues to get reoriented to their graph, and not have to dredge up declarative memories of what might be in there.
- If the research findings about PIM hold up, the tool that achieves the best balance of navigational structure and distributed graph traversal will have a strong advantage in the marketplace
For someone who uses Logseq for specific purposes, and doesn’t “live in it”, the “time-first” navigation pattern, and strong search-dependency, is very difficult to work with. It’s like there’s not enough structure there to work with, and you start your retrieval experience by being stymied and disoriented.
I don’t see how a tool can grow its market if it assumes people will use it everyday, or at least so frequently that they don’t need more cognitive scaffolding to use it. Scrolling through the journals gives me no idea what I was thinking in the past if my thinking has gone cold. The much maligned Graph View is actually the most helpful tool to get re-oriented.
Precisely. This is why I have been voicing my feedback about a need for a library view to see your graph’s structure. As it is today its just chaos in a non-linear system that relies on recollection to retrieve notes. I may not recall something that could be 10 layers deep until i’m 3-5 days into something and I stumble upon the note by luck, where if I had structure I would of found it on day 1 by looking over my hierarchy.
Now all this could very well have to also do with the fact that I struggle with ADHD. I can only survive by having structure and having everything within view at any given time to see where and what contains all of my notes. When I lack that structure it can become overwhelming for me and panic mode begins to start simplifying my system even more.
I’m also an “everything out” organizer. In a kitchen, I need either open shelves or cabinets with glass doors, in order to maintain order. I need see-through storage containers. I constantly need to see my organizational structure at a glance, in order to know where anything is, except for things I use constantly. I’m fine with messiness. I’m a messy-desk person. It just needs to be the kind of mess I can stand back and get the overview of. I rely on spatial overview first to get oriented to an information space, then after that, I can start sorting backwards in time.
Like in my email, sure I let things pile up temporally and scroll back through time to see & recall stuff, but I have (I’m almost embarassed to say) 23 email accounts, all entering my email client. Each account is one I give out for slightly different purposes, in different topical communities, and so in addition to searching back in time, I can check the inbox of any one account and get that slice of my world filtered for free.
So getting an overview of all my different reverse-chronological email streams in my unified inbox is crucial, as is my ability to select just one branch. A space-like, category-like organization needs to be primary, and then I can deal with time-based organization after that.
One response to this preference would be for the Logseq developers simply to assert that time-based sequences of logs is the primary navigational interface for Logseq (as per the name), and if I want a system that offers hierarchy of any sort as a primary navigational interface, I should look elsewhere.
That’s fine, I guess. I will look elsewhere in that case. But I invested time and effort in Logseq over its alternatives precisely because of the “Hierarchies” section I saw on Logseq pages. I assumed that was a signal the concept would be considered important by the developers.
Also, empirical studies of PKM practices, as far as I am aware, support precisely the pattern of “some foldering, plus search and sort by time/histories”. People tend to use a few big buckets to get oriented to clumps of related information, but then check out filenames and recency of files and so on to find what they need.
So all of the many suggestions in this thread to provide better UIs for non-exhaustive, overlapping hierarchies is a very good fit for the kind of “sloppy but important” foldering that has been observed among users of classic desktop computers.
I’m an “all of the above” depending on the day kind of person. Search, chronological, tags, folders - I need to be able to use all of those tools to access the data that I spent time putting in my PKM.
I really hate that so many of the PKM apps want us to abandon one or the other of these tools in favor of forcing our brains to do something completely new. Stop it. Quit trying to change me. Start trying to help me.
Logseq is an outliner, CLEARLY there is an appreciation for the hierarchical nature of thought and organization.
Zotero is familiar to many folks here - every item can be in multiple collections, can have tags, has metadata fields, and is searchable. The hierarchical collections are easy to view and navigate, all the tags can be seen, clicked, and edited. It’s easy to figure out and use, and I don’t feel like my content is lost.
But I also want a chronological journal, and outline format, and backlinks, and I suppose a graph (though I don’t use it). Like I said…I want it all.
Take the Zotero concepts and add them to the outliner with backlinks and pretty graph and we’re totally in business.
This is an incredibly helpful and succinct summary of why am I am struggling to use Logseq despite my best efforts to get comfortable with it - the lack of organization within Logseq’s structure for pages, etc.
To me, having to use recall instead of recognition to access my information is a huge obstacle to my enjoyment of using the application. While back-linking is great and I make liberal use of it whenever I am creating a note, sometimes I create a note with no back-links either because (a) it might relate to a topic that is novel to me and I don’t yet know what the note’s relationship to other notes will be or (b) there might be novel relationships that will only surface with time. Either way, this inherent ambiguity is a source of anxiety when working with Logseq because it feels that I have to constantly remember everything that I’ve put into to my graph because otherwise things will get lost in the morass of “All Notes”.
On a separate but related note, Logseq’s current implementation of aliases is pretty terrible and only adds to the above-mentioned anxiety of using the application as it forces me to have to remember which among several aliases is the actual page that all other aliases are supposed to point to because the application offers no help at all with regards to that.
There are definitely things I like about Logseq and look forward to its further development. But as it stands, I just don’t feel comfortable using the application in its current iteration. I appreciate that it want to have a very specific point of view, and in many ways that point of view suits me (e.g. outlines, back-links, clean UI, search, tags, etc.), but in other ways, it feels like Logseq wants my brain to think in a fundamentally different way than what is natural to me. For me, having some measure of hierarchy through chronology, inbox and (limited use of) folders would go a very long way to making the app more use-able and, I imagine for a lot of potential users out there, user friendly by offering recognition of data as an alternative to recall.
I understand that Logseq could provide better UI/UX for this, but why don’t you just
In the latter case you could add “Organized” as page-tag and in the page [[Not organized]] put a query that lists all the pages without the tag Organized.
Logseq provides powerful generic tools that the user can combine in creative ways and this leads to complains like the ones in this thread, but if Logseq forced one specific workflow there would be even more complains because a workflow will fit only a small portion of the users. And indeed Logseq receives complains in the areas where it forces specific workflows, like the task management one with TODO/DONE etc.
