Hello and apologies if my English isn’t the clearest
I have been trying for a long time to understand, how not to exaggerate with the use of concepts [[tags]].I noticed that half of the notes that I have are precisely [[tags]] and I’m afraid that going ahead the situation will become untenable.
Should I think of it more generically, going a level of abstraction upwards?
How to not get rigid with metadata but at the same time maintain a useful and long-lasting organizational structure?
Is there anyone who encountered a similar issue?
Thanks!
I recently started working with Obsidian and came across @tallguyjenks (edited) on YouTube and started implementing his way of using tags. What he actually does is mainly using [[links]] as tags, which might be the perfect solution for your situation too, as you won’t need to change your way of working/thinking about tags, just stop using #tag and use [[tag]] instead and voila: A complete new world opens up! Well att least that’s how I felt about it:) Here’s a link to his video and his entire playlist.
Hey @u1mp3 ,thanks for replying!
Sorry, perhaps I explained myself badly.
I know Bryan’s system and i have already implemented it…that’s why I’m writing: [[tags]]
My issue is regarding the always increasing number of those [[tags]] ( links) which is bothering me.You know,there can be an infinite number of possible concepts, and it would be impossible to analyze the enormous amount of new possible MOCs.
But,on the other hand, I don’t really want to get rid of the least connected entries either.I see those as meaningful concepts/possible MOCs.
Maybe i need to go one level of abstraction up?
For example,instead of creating an entry for a philosophical concept of [[Universals]],i could go one level higher by writing [[Ontology]],or even higher by writing [[Metaphysics]],which subsumes the other two concepts.
Which rules one need in order to not mess up the whole metadata thing?
important question, for each [[Tag]] are you actually MAKING the note for it? i make [[tags]] but the note doesnt exist. that changes the color of the node on my graph. over time and linking many many notes to a [[tag]] that doesnt exist yet as an actually note.md file then i can see that it’s a popular topic in my vault and therefore might warrant being graduated into a MOC in its own right.
the amount on [[tags]] and ACTUAL notes i have in my vault differ widely. Or maybe im reading this wrong
Hey @tallguyjenks ,thanks for taking time to reply!
After watching (and re-watching) your stuff (which is simply GREAT!!) i tried (besides many other things) to adopt your method of using [[tag]] concepts but I’m afraid that in the future i will have some issues. Perhaps my preoccupations can be explained by the kind of goal and utility i’m seeking from my PKM system…or maybe i’m missing some obvious and important point.
From many readings on this forum and by watching yours and other peoples stuff,i had understood a cauple of important things:
1.that in order to maintain a flat structure one must use a good amount of descriptive metadata.
2.using [[tags]] is better because (among other things) of the nature of the link itself and they show a bi-directional relationships
3.it’s better to not highly pre-structure your own PKM
So,in short: by freely adding metadata ,without any kind of structured approach I find myself adding too much metadata, and i feel like there are many similar/redundant concepts and other which are important will not be structured under a MOC note.
Maybe i need to add more metadata in order to describe fully the content?Do i need to structure it in some light way?Perhaps i could have a simple mental map on how to maintain a slightly higher level of generalizzation/abstraction while placing [[concpets]]?
How would you approach these issues in my use case??!
Thanks!!
