In the picture, as you can see, the page @Dose of Jogging and Long-Term Mortality (2015) - Schnohr already appears in Pages tagged with “running”, so I want to remove it from the Linked References.
How can I do that?
I am one of those who have noticed the problem. They should be removed from Linked References. Until improvements are implemented in the Logseq core, there is a way to force removal via CSS. (write to custom.css) Less duplication, less overhead.
#main-content-container div.page-linked div.references-blocks-item:has(a[data-ref="tags"]) {
display: none;
}
(*Using this, the number of Linked References does not match. )
1 Like
Thanks for your help!
However, I now understand why they want to show the page in Linked References. In the picture below, my page has 3 tags, so I can filter for the tag that I want, because the “Resources” page is like a folder where I store files that I upload (articles, websites, books, etc.)
Now, if I manually hide the page from Linked References using the code you sent, I can no longer filter for the file using the tags.
So, I think the solution should be
- We hide the page from Linked References.
- We display other tags right next to the page in the section Pages tagged with “running” (see picture). When we click the tags, logseq will only show pages that have the tags selected. The downside would be when we have so many tags for each page. So there is no perfect solution
1 Like
As you say, solutions are also needed. It would be possible to devise a way to display the number of references, for example by not displaying more than three references.
(This could be achieved with a plugin, but processing overhead would be expected and display space would be needed for this.)
I would prefer to split page tags and linked references in Logseq core.
They should be split, but the amount of information should be accurate and compact so that necessary content is not buried. Both of these are difficult to achieve, but would greatly improve the usability of Logseq.
The current document file-based Logseq has difficulty handling the amount of content in terms of overhead. Improvements should be made in the new db version.