Hope you have felt our efforts on improving long page writing experience over past months.
We can do more on the long page UX & storage when the long page performance meets our expectation.
And, it’s always on our roadmap:
6 Likes
I have used Ulysses for 15 years, LS for almost 3. Together they meet my needs, but at a cost. There is significant friction for me in moving between the two in terms of time lost. I do it but it takes Markdown cleanup time and reformatting that I wish I didn’t have to do. If LS doesn’t move towards its own version of longform writing, I believe it is in the best of interests of LS to identify its longform “partner” and make the transition between the two as seamless as possible. To underline this point, if Ulysses were to come out with a direct backlink function (which my tea leaves suggest they are getting close to doing) and outlining capacity, Logseq would become immediately less valuable to me in its current state. I would likely leave it behind.
1 Like
That’s fair. I like Ulysses, but I settled on Typora as longform writing tool in the end.
You may have hit on something: Logseq don’t necessarily need to build functionality but rather a means of exporting in formats suitable for working in the major long form applications. That’s a much more straightforward proposition to implement than reproducing the functionality of a wide range of other products which have been being built for many years with substantial investment behind them.
Logseq may lose a little business to Ulysses, but there’s little point trying to be Scrivener or Ulysses when they already exist and their shared market isn’t huge. I expect Ulysses is eyeing up Scrivener’s business… It already has outlining (albeit quite different to Logseq’s).
1 Like
This is the last line of the original post:
“but even if only some of [these features] can be implemented it could help improve integration with existing longform writing apps that rely on plain text.”
1 Like
Perhaps that is what it said, but features in the original post like writing goals and document management (in core) go way beyond integration with/export to existing apps and reproduces some of their core functionality. A major part of the reason for using Ulysses is writing goals and managing documents within a project!
Even Obsidian, which in some ways could be better suited to longform writing, has no apparent plans to introduce functionality like that to its core.
If people want to write plugins, great!
I also wrote: “As such, it isn’t a standard feature request. Some of the ideas here might be spun off as feature requests on their own, but that isn’t the point. Rather, it is intended to start a discussion about what the best way might be for Logseq to achieve these overarching goals.”
Some features might be best as plugins, others might be best in the core, and others might be achieved simply by improving existing features such as reference management and copy-as functions. I’m not a programmer, so I don’t attempt to try to assume which features would make sense to accomplish in which way. That’s for others to decide, but I think it is useful for those who don’t use Ulysses or other such apps to understand the entire workflow.
1 Like
That would be a great développement of Logseq. I’m new in Logseq, and I choose it because it matches so much my way of working/thinking ! But I also need a “long form” tool. I am using SCRIVENER. But I am beginning to create all my PKM system in Logseq. Longform would definitely improve Logseq, by integrating all data’s of research, ideas, concepts, in the same app in which I write my long manuscript.
Using external app for writing, but needing the Wiki links like functions, the connections, the query’s tools, direct links with the research data’s created in another app (Logseq), during the writing process, seems to me that we loose all the benefits of Logseq, and my PK.
The different point of view, are very interesting. And maybe some plug-in would be the solution. If creating this feature lead to rewrite completely the logic of Logseq I understand that it’s not worth it. But some new functionalities, facilitating the longform, could be very useful. For complete features like Scrivener, Ulysses, it’s better using those specific apps. But for a big % of needs, e few plug-in/new features, would be perfect.
Thanks for this post, and sorry for my bad English. 
3 Likes
Friends, I’m a plugin developer and Logseq lover, I have developed many useful plugins like the TOC Generator that you can find in the Logseq’s plugin marketplace. I have just developed a plugin dedicated to longform writing and I’d like to invite you all to try it:
It’s a paid plugin but you can try it as many times as you want, it’s not on the marketplace and have to be installed manually, just follow the installation instructions on the project’s page given above. If you have more questions, feel free to join the dedicated Discord channel, it’s listed at the bottom of the project’s page.
3 Likes
I’ve created a new post listing all the various plugins that have been developed to help long form writing in Logseq.
2 Likes
Cross-referencing my comment about working on a plugin to display blocks like Gingko: