The idea would be to emulate the limits of an index card to keep notes short and atomic.
A (hard) word-limit or (soft) count-down could be enabled for notes in specific folders (/Atoms) or tags (#atom).
5 Likes
Maybe could be done in CSS so only so many words were displayed?
1 Like
I had not considered CSS as an option, thank you!
Maybe it’s a combination of JS and CSS because I would love to see how many words I have left.
Until then I periodically look at the word-count bottom-right and check if it’s above “150” 
1 Like
You’re asking to have an artificial limiter on your note length. So, let’s say you set the limit at 100 words, then any note you want to compose will be limited to 100 words. But that is an arbitrary number, because a 10-word note can be atomic, but a 10-word note can also not be atomic. The same goes for a 200 word note.
In other words, setting an arbitrarily “low” number does not necessarily achieve your objective of atomicity, AND it is distracting because you’ll be keeping an eye (physically or mentally) on that word counter.
It would be better to revisit the concept of atomicity, and create your atomic notes in a more natural way. You’ll be able to handle your zettel in a better, more satisfying manner, IMHO.
3 Likes
The concept of a limit is closer to a Luhmannesque index card than is an infinitely extensible document though.
An “infinitely extensible document” has nothing to do with a Luhmanneque system of atomic zettel, so you are not comparing like for like.
Someone who needs an artificial word limiter has not understood the concept of atomicity Ă la Luhmann, nor its function.
Maybe, but Luhmann kept to index cards and emphasised few but well formed sentences.
Having a limit would be a way of enforcing the same discipline as an index card.
Luhmann’s index cards were short, and, apart from the fact that there was one available, he certainly did not need a word limiter, neither for his index cards nor for his zettel.
Even if the word limiter artefact would have been available, he would not have need one for one simple reason: he understood the concept of atomicity. I believe it is not an exaggeration to state that.
Wasn’t the size of an index card a physical word limiter?
Probably after years of using the system, he might have not “needed” a word limiter, but this is purely speculative on your part as the fact remains that the format of the cards worked in effect as such.
Furthermore, isn’t the point of the ZK to make thinking easier? And if one is struggling with making ideas concise, is it not fair to look for tools that would “force” one into a more effective habit?
Isn’t the whole spirit of the ZK, the reason it works, to be an external physical system that streamlines or carries the burdens that we normally thrust upon our brain?
I think an artificial word limit is a fantastic idea, because even though it is not “necessary,” it is for sure a very helpful tool to transform the theory of atomicity into its practice.
1 Like
I mean just write whatever you want and refactor it to smaller notes later? Seems more practical.
For those attempting to follow Luhmann, iirc he wrote his cards in the evening. Presumably did his reading at a variety of times. But what he read and his thoughts about it were current when he wrote his cards. So, for those whose memory might fail, your refactoring might be closest to his actual system. But soon after, not long delayed. And fits better maybe with digital systems using quotes and highlighting.
There is a plugin that does this, it’s called PaperCut.
3 Likes
Thanks!
Someone who needs an artificial word limiter has not understood the concept of atomicity Ă la Luhmann, nor its function.
cf Sönke Ahrens, How to Take Smart Notes, 12.7 Facilitate Creativity through Restrictions:
“even though the digital program lifts the physical restrictions on the length of a note, I highly recommend treating a digital note as if the space were limited. By restricting ourselves to one format, we also restrict ourselves to just one idea per note and force ourselves to be as precise and brief as possible. The restriction to one idea per note is also the precondition to recombine them freely later. Luhmann choose notes in the format A6. A good rule of thumb for working with the program is: Each note should fit onto the screen and there should be no need of scrolling.”
I think that both Luhmann and Ahrens used a kind of artificial limitation of the content of notes. Artificial limitations are inherent to the idea of the Zettelkasten. Standardising the thought process, allows the working memory to no longer be burdened with side tasks. I don’t have to constantly think about form when I write because the word limit automatically indicates that my note should be split up already. This is an essential point of the Zettelkasten, namely the clear separation of tasks.
@rapha I am not disputing the need to limit the content of Zettelkasten notes - the definition of a Zettelkasten imposes that.
What I dispute is the need for an artificial tool to do that for you. Your brain should do it for you through your understanding of the concept of an atomic note.
In fact, as per your quote, both Ahrens and Luhmann only use/used the visible working space as a limiter, they did not use an artifact. Perhpas in Luhmann’s days there were no artifacts available, in Ahrens’s day (i.e. today) there are, such as the Papercut plug-in mentioned above, but he still does not use them.
If one needs an artifact that “deletes any note content that exceeds that limit” has not fully grasped the atomic note concept.
Hello @Klaas. I understood that you’re not disputing that fact.
I understand that a short text does not equal an atomic note and that a word count will not make a note atomic.
But I don’t see the difference between the “chosen working space” and an “artifact” in this context. Both allow us to “treat a digital note as if the space were limited”, be it by limiting the amount of words, not letting the scroll bar appear or writing on A6 paper. What is the difference between that and Ahren’s rule of thumb?
Also, atomicity is a concept to be implemented through practice. I don’t see why we should not employ a tool to help our brain do something. The whole concept of Zettelkasten consists in employing a tool to help our brain do something. In that sense, I also don’t see what you mean by “artificial tool” as opposed to a tool, and why that’s a bad thing.
That being said, a word limit merely indicates that a note is too long and we’re likely not getting to the essence of the idea - and that helps us practise this skill.
@rapha thanks for your feedback.
I merely expressed my view about the use of such a tool. But my view, FWIW anyway, is just one among a number of others, inc. yours.
So, by all means use the tool if it makes a positive contribution to your note-taking; I won’t because it makes a negative contribution in my case as I prefer to be the one to decide when and how to limit the length of my notes, rather than some external factor that goes about it in a black & white way without consideration for the context.