I want Logseq to support nested tags

In Obsidian, I replace the numbering system of Luhmann’s notes with a “nested label + title” format, where nested labels are based on the Universal Decimal Book Classification.

For example:
#400-Humanities /410-Language/411-English/411-1Phonetics /411-1-1Pronunciation

So my immediate problem with using Logseq is that my previous management system for “nested tags” doesn’t work. It can only be done in the form of MOC, not in the previous TOC + MOC mode.

I know there are a lot of people who say that tags belong to Evernote, the old note-taking system, and that new note-taking systems eliminate tags, and that two-way links have completely replaced tags. I don’t agree with this point of view. Personally, I think the advantage of hierarchical labels is that they are used to structure management categories. And the advantage of double chain is a kind of network. In the short run, network can be managed instead, but in the long run, a more convenient structure of management is necessary.

But it is also possible that I have not reached a higher level of understanding of “tags” and “double chains”, which is why I have such an “anti-ancestor” need.

The last thing I want to say is that we may only be a small group of “anti-ancestor” users, but we still want Logseq to give users the “power of choice.”

As a note-taking enthusiast, I am looking forward to the future ecology of Logseq. Thanks to the Logseq team!

Related articles

I totally agree with you! I am a heavy user of hierarchical tagging and it really helps as a block level annotation for simple querying. Also it is crucial to my Obsidian + Logseq workflow which uses tagging to resurface information in spite of any syntax differences.

1 Like