How to leverage Logseq's linked structure?

[mentaloid]

@Siferiax

is the PARA method structure a good framework for me?

Better than nothing, but weak.

@Siferiax

A project is a project

Rather a PARA project is a project.

@Siferiax

For example say I played Tunic on Monday, Friday and Sunday.

This type of information is hardly useful in anything other than statistics.

@Siferiax

Should PARA pages be included or excluded?

should I hide the PARA pages in my graph?

should I hide these [agenda, goals, highlights] from my graph?

should they merely be hidden from the graph?

Having to question it that much, it’s a yes, hide them to reduce the noise.

@Siferiax

Maybe this [area + subject] is redundant?

Yes, it is redundant. Both in games and in projects.

@Siferiax

I feel that [more than 1 connection] is not necessarily true for something like my notes on specific games. Due to the volume of notes it makes sense for a game to have its own page. But it’s not going to be connected much beyond that unless I find some reference to another game or something like that?

Cannot “leverage Logseq’s linked structure” without enough links. Linked knowledge on a game could be elements of its genre, reasons that you play it, any lasting effects on you, etc. Think of a wiki on either the game itself (like those found online) or the game in relation to you (few games are more than time-killers). Days and hours don’t make for interesting articles.

@Siferiax

I believe you mean the Hobby > games > Tunic > Hobby thing here. I agree.
It should probably just be Hobby > games > Tunic

Yes, triangles are the smallest case of “everything connects to everything else”.

@Siferiax

I follow what you’re saying in theory, but I don’t quite understand what that would look like in practice?

This is for homework, to see how the paths emerge.

@Siferiax

I think this would illustrate the problem for me pretty well.

Your illustrations help indeed.

@Siferiax

This graph looks already better I feel.

I guess the improved graph follows this logic [paths] more.

It does. Well done.

@Siferiax

So this should improve the noise ratio of my graph. Is this a good approach I should consider doing with my actual graph?

These are steps to the right direction. Clarity gets improved gradually. Here are some more steps in moving from indices to concepts:

• make them singular, e.g. game
• remove capitalization, e.g. home

Could look like this:

@Siferiax

Going by your analogy I think my graph is for the most part structured like a hierarchy. Door Tunic on street games connected to road Hobby in town Areas.

…in PARA land. True. And that facilitates navigation, but not discoveries.

@Siferiax

Can you give a more concrete example? I can’t quite wrap my head around this one [the soft rule].

• Being primarily hierarchical (i.e. items inside groups, say R), your connections are rarely orthogonal, e.g.:
  • item roomName (say A) connected (R) to group home (B)
• Consider another relation (S orthogonal to R) about instances of concepts:
  • instance roomName (A) connected (S) to concept room (C)
• The soft rule says that there is another node (D) between home (B) and room (C):
  • home (B) could be an instance (S) of house (D), where room (C) is an item (R)
• Is this new knowledge?
  • New knowledge doesn’t emerge every day but:
    • when it does, it does in ways like that
    • understanding given knowledge can also be like that
• Now if you acquire knowledge on:
  • room decoration, you can apply it on roomName
  • house remodeling, you can apply it on home
• Isn’t this superficial?
  • Enough to serve as a simple example.
  • There is no difference in how things emerge from:
    • the bottom of a glass
    • the bed of an ocean

@Siferiax

I never found anyone concretely explaining what they mean with it

Hopefully the above is concrete enough.