Working with several graphs for different topics?

Hi all, new here.

I’m a quite messy person, and yesterday, listening a couple of friends about obsidian, and looking information, I found this application. I’m starting to think how to use it and would like if others works in the same way.

(1) In one side, I have job. For this I want to use an exclusive graph because I don’t want to mix private things with company things. This is fine and I don’t think will change.

(2) On the other side, I have sometimes private tasks, and things about different hobbies (Chess, Go, videogames, sports…) I have. I have a couple of youtube channels and several social media for this accounts (personality disorder? :smiley: )

I would like to know, about 2, if you use several graphs to separate all this different things, or use one graph and using tags mix all the information. I appreciate suggestion for organization of all of this. Just learning about tags and wikilinks no idea about other things like properties.

There are some AAR (After Action Reports) about how people use Logseq in his day by day?



  • There is currently no ideal solution.
  • I personally use:
    • a separate graph for each project
    • one meta-graph for:
      • the surface of the projects
      • any relationships among them
  • This approach:
    • avoids the noise
    • never has to worry about loading too much
    • but doesn’t have everything available at the same time, a clear disadvantage that:
      • may be reduced in the future
      • but is not a viable option for everyone
1 Like

I plop basically everything in 1 graph, but both are valid ways.
I dislike having to switch between graphs.
For each of my hobbies I have a seperate “landing” page.
So for example I have a page gaming (I chose this specifically as a verb. But could be games, video games etc)
Which has the property cluster:: hobby (I chose cluster as in group instead of the more general type, but that’s personal preference)
Then each of my games has its own page with property hobby:: [[gaming]] to link it back to the “landing” page.
And that’s how I structured a lot of my graph.

Would that graph be like project name and any relationships/meta data, or do you duplicate any information to have it in both places?

  • Duplication can be convenient but hard to maintain, so I generally avoid it.
  • The meta-graph contains just one page per graph, which keeps:
    • any relationships of that graph to the other ones
    • and of course the backlinks from the other graphs
1 Like

I understand you don’t link from journal, you use directly that landing right? Sorry if it’s a silly question, but I’m still trying to acommodate my mind to this way of thinking and tool.

Oh, you can link between different graphs?

Only with external links (i.e. [label](url) ), which don’t participate in Logseq’s database (i.e. no backlinks etc.) The meta-graph is needed exactly to maintain proper links among the pages that represent each graph, otherwise it can be skipped.

I do link from the journal.
I do things a little bit silly to accommodate some of my own quirks.
But I would generally link to the gaming page and the specific game page whenever I play. This way I make a nice little logbook for myself.
The gaming page itself basically has an overview with games and statuses of those games through queries.
The pages for specific games have some properties for that game and whatever other info I wish to keep there.

But you should see what you like best.
I’ve changed my system many times to tweak it to better suit my needs.

Well, this is the issue. I don’t know what I like best yet lol. I just don’t totally understand if I reference from journal, what’s the point of the page more than see the references. Need to see more examples of usage cases :grinning:

I am very iOS/Mac-centric so this won’t apply to everyone but,
The Mac app DevonThink uses a database model and one can have many open at once. I use it for many things: work projects (I’m freelance so it’s kind of one per client/job), a RSS type of scrapbook, receipt tracking and reporting, writing projects, document management, email archiving, journaling. Mostly there’s a different database for each purpose. There are some functions that only work within one database (replicants) and some that work across any open database.
I have one Devonthink database and one LogSeq graph for each of the major work projects I am involved in right now. I store all my docs in DevonThink and link to them from LogSeq. I do all task management and idea generation in Logseq. I can archive email in DT and link to messages in that archive from within LogSeq, which is great for chasing problems and solving them. I switch the open LogSeq graph to match the work I am doing. I use the GitHub sync and working copy to push sync to my iPhone and that works great (don’t ask me to explain how to set it up, I use the tutorial EVERY time)

It’s all doable with the current LogSeq one-graph-at-a-time model but if there was a DevonThink-like multiple databases open at a time paradigm, I could really make my system fly. I know that isn’t a priority for most people and I am not sure how it would work at the Journal level which I think is a strength of Logseq.

I too am doing this constantly and constantly finding new ways to do things. Reading this forum and the one for Devonthink is a really good way to see other peoples methodologies and how they might apply to my needs.

1 Like

And you won’t until you try things :yum:

Two different things that. I’ll show you my example.

Here’s my gaming page. Everything that has a cogwheel (:gear:) next to it on the right is a header of the query, everything indented under it is the query result. As you can see I use those quite a bit to gather info on this page.

Next I’ll show a bit from my Tears of the Kingdom page (sorry if it is a spoiler, I don’t think so necessarily? Also don’t worry about my obsession with Addison, I’m fine :joy:)

You can see how I use my journal entries, which I gather with the query “Logboek”… and some of the notes I actually keep on the page.

So it is a matter of information that is time bound (journal) and information that is more general/timeless (page itself)
This is how I’ve come to divide most of my data. That which matters to a point in time (journal), that which is more general (topic/concept page)

PS. Most of my notes start in the journal and later I’ll move them to a better place if so needed. I make sure each top level block has at least a reference to some page for future recovery.


Wow, i honestly had no idea people are using that many graphs…

To me, the main feature of Logseq is that I don’t have to think where to put anything. I just write in the journal, and tag it. I use it almost as a paper notebook, so there’s private and work stuff, notes about people I met, ideas, research… and I never clean it up :slight_smile:

So it looks super messy, but through tagging (this i do consistently!) I can easily find the relevant information, and crucially: it stops me from procrastinating with (folder/graph/etc) structures.

But of course: whatever works for you.

1 Like

Until reaching the scale that it works less and less well, by which time it may be too late to fix.

  • This is not a feature of Logseq, but a consequence of effective journaling.
  • Journaling gives the sense that, because everything is noted and tagged, it will always pop up when needed.
    • But this sense is false.
    • The quality of tagging is the primary factor for the quality of finding some information in the future.
    • That can work fine for:
      • relatively small graphs
      • authored by yourself alone
    • But gradually the noise increases and finding information can get increasingly difficult as:
      • a graph gets bigger
        • and the information is scattered in multiple places
          • and non-identical repetitions start appearing
      • more people get involved
        • including the future versions of yourself
          • which are no more in a position to cover the holes
            • If a third person cannot make sense of something, your future self will also struggle.
    • And there is no way to know that some information passed unnoticed.
      • So as to search harder or otherwise keep trying.
    • If tagging is good enough (and that is a big if), queries can filter out the noise.
      • But up to some degree, good enough for relatively simple relationships only.
  • Journals are great as first receivers of information.
    • And not everything needs to be moved out of there.
      • Only things that are ready to.
  • But everything important-enough should at some point be moved to the place that it really belongs, ensuring that:
    • it will never pass unnoticed
    • it can leverage the overall quality and usefulness of the graph
      • High-quality graphs go beyond the information and discover knowledge.
  • All that is relevant for people that use Logseq:
    • for knowledge management
    • not for things like mind-therapy etc.

So you are telling me my system isn’t working?


I think the implication is more that it may not work forever.
I have found that even though I tag stuff consistently (same tags, for same things, with same conventions etc), having things be just in the journal starts to become a limitation when one tries to retrieve it later.

I found that searching through linked reference isn’t ideal in most cases.
So for topics outside of actual journaling (or mind therapy I suppose :D) I will move blocks to pages when gathering, organizing and retrieving information. To make sense of it etc. To spare my future self the effort of having to do so again.

There’s something to be said about either

  • immediately organizing something and trying to make the perfect system
  • or, never organizing at all

It isn’t either the first or the last. There’s a whole spectrum in between.
I believe that just saying “whatever works for you” is short sighted. It forgets that people will not yet know what works for them in most situations. It also forgets that future you will exist and will need to also get something out of the system.
While we cannot predict the future, we can consider what might be convenient to have at the time of it’s arrival.

It’s a nice sense to have though :smiley:
I think there is a false conception of popping up at all.
Unless we actively dig through our graph, (whatever shape that takes, linked references, queries, searches) information will not “pop up” at all. Let alone when needed.

I think this is the hardest part of finding a system. Some middle ground between what works for now and what works for later.
We can get lost in over-organization for later, which costs us time and effort now that may not be well spend. Future us may not be at all happy with what past us came up with. (I run into this continuously)
However not doing any organization at all will also hinder future us, even though present us may be very capable of dealing with the current small set of data.

  • Never said anything like that.
    • If it wasn’t working, you wouldn’t be using it.
  • Only time will tell whether and when you may find and adopt a better way.
    • It is very common for users to reconsider their way as they acquire more experience.
  • In quantitative systems, balance is usually the right way.
    • And finding it can be hard, thus again costing time and effort.
  • However, I think that the cases in this discussion are qualitative.
    • For example, should not decide:
      • the number of tags/references by their number
      • the degree of organization by measuring the number of graphs, pages, blocks etc.
    • Numbers may provide some indication, but there is no ideal number that applies everywhere.
    • In such cases, the question should be:
      • not: “How many (graphs, pages, tags etc.)?”
        • This leads to unhelpful answers like:
          • “One works for now.”
          • “I guess one per …”
      • but: “Is this extra (graph, page, tag etc.) well-justified?”
        • A subjective question of course, but not regretted when the future self arrives.
    • In other words:
      • to expect that we will make mistakes anyway
        • we are humans, with limitations, etc.
      • but to have a good excuse for them
        • Common bad excuses:
          • laziness
          • perfectionism
        • In contrast, a good excuse can provide the future self with a clue on how to improve the situation. A couple of examples:
          • “I was afraid that missing this tag would hide that block forever.”
            • Indicates the need for e.g.:
              • a more specific tag
              • grouping the block under some parent already having that tag
          • “I needed this block to appear in that query.”
            • Indicates the need for e.g.:
              • a better query
              • an extra query
1 Like

Hi Siferiax,
I’m still quite new to Logseq. I also use it to track games, but it’s quite chaotic at the moment.
Your system seems to be great.
I would be interested in the queries.

Could you perhaps share the two pages from the screenshots as files? Possibly also a file from the journal as you use it there.

That would be really cool. :slight_smile:

Sure thing. I have recently changed my gaming statussen, so that’ll look a bit different.

For games itself I have the following template:

- template:: games
  template-including-parent:: false
  collapsed:: true
	- icon:: 🎮
	  hobby:: [[gaming]]
	  game-type:: eindig of oneindig
	  franchise:: ➖
	  status:: nieuw
	  gespeeld:: ❌
	  credits:: ❌
	  extras:: ➖
	  dlc:: ➖
	  datum-begin:: ➖
	  datum-eind:: ➖
	  {:title [:h3 "📒 Logboek vandaag"]
	   :inputs [:query-page "gaming" :today]
	   :query [:find (pull ?b [*])
	    :in $ ?game ?hobby ?today
	     [?g :block/name ?game]
	     [?h :block/name ?hobby]
	     [?b :block/refs ?g]
	     [?b :block/refs ?h]
	     [?b :block/page ?p]
	     [?p :block/journal-day ?today]
	   :breadcrumb-show? false
	  {:title [:h3 "📒 Logboek vorige keer"]
	   :inputs [:query-page "gaming" :today]
	   :query [:find (pull ?b [*])
	    :in $ ?game ?hobby ?today
	     [?g :block/name ?game]
	     [?h :block/name ?hobby]
	     [?b :block/refs ?g]
	     [?b :block/refs ?h]
	     [?b :block/page ?p]
	     [?p :block/journal-day ?dag]
	     [(< ?dag ?today)]
	       [?x :block/refs ?g]
	       [?x :block/refs ?h]
	       [?x :block/page ?j]
	       [?j :block/journal-day ?d]
	       [(< ?dag ?d ?today)]
	   :breadcrumb-show? false
	- collapsed:: true
	  {:title [:h3 "📒 Logboek"]
	   :inputs [:query-page "gaming"]
	   :query [:find (pull ?b [*])
	    :in $ ?game ?hobby
	     [?g :block/name ?game]
	     [?h :block/name ?hobby]
	     [?b :block/refs ?g]
	     [?b :block/refs ?h]
	     [?b :block/page ?p]
	     [?p :block/journal? true]
	   :breadcrumb-show? false
	   :collapsed? true

And the journal would look like so:

- [[gaming]] : [[Tears of the Kingdom]]
	- Korok bij z'n vriendje gebracht.
	- Addison!! 🤩
	- Robred Dropoff Cave ontdekt. Bubbul gem gevonden. Sta voor het hek met erachter de treasure...

Hope that helps!

1 Like