Zettelkasten.de

It's an interesting thought experiment.

Recently, I've started switching my note taking to being more aligned to the ideas in the antinet zettlekasten. (See https://zettelkasten.de/posts/overview/). Basically, I handwrite notes into images that I store. This basically makes it less "convenient" to search, but I've found that doesn't matter - I seem to recall things that I handwrite far, far better than anything I've ever typed. And I can make pictures. But it's still pretty nice to have it on my tablet vs a card index (though I can still transfer between the two formats pretty easily using a scanner or my phone camera).

My sense isn't that there's this strict "convenience vs satisfaction" thing going on, but that there's more of a bit of a UX mismatch between how people kind of naturally interact with the physical world and the very limited interactions we currently have with the digital ecosystem. I find handwriting to be much more engaging, even on a tablet, versus typing anything. Though it still feels like we've barely scratched the surface here of what you can do with digital interaction.

Maybe AI improves on this, making these more physical interactions easier for machines to understand. Like, in my note taking example, maybe my handwriting could be used as input to a recommendation system for new books. Or, instead of thinking about YouTube as a replacement for physically being on a construction site, you could have shorter, contextual videos sent to something like…

I'd say that most of the distinction between books and blogs / other online writing is about the process and result rather than of the physical form of the product itself, though that has some bearing (see my recent comments elsewhere in this thread).

If you're familiar with the literature on writing itself --- fiction or nonfiction --- what becomes clear is how books are crafted. There's the idea, often research, organisation of notes and the like, writing itself, and then very often many, many, many rounds of editing and proofing, which go towards a result which ideally reads well, is factually accurate (where such things matter), that educational materials follow good pedagogy, is well cited and referenced, has needless fat trimmed, etc., etc.

Traditional publishing has multiple edit and filter points, from initial acquisition through revisions and translations. The upside is (potentially) well-crafted works, the downside is that many proposals don't get green-lit. The promise of the Web was breaking that editorial chokepoint, which has its own pros and cons.

Yes, of course it's possible to craft bad books, and as The Good Book notes, there is no end.

But blogging and article-writing frequently cuts many of these corners. Yes, a domain-expert can write a good blog, and yes, the process of blogging itself can be part of the process of book-creation, with feedback and corrections to the (error-prone, roughly-hewn) blog posts itself contributing to that finished…

I'm dealing with the same issue actively. My latest attempt involves the article https://zettelkasten.de/posts/knowledge-cycle-efficiently-organize-writing-projects/

I have a gazillion tabs open, and I try to work through my tabs once a day to see what I can delete without losing information I want to keep and what I think is valuable enough to add to my notes in some way.

I'll look for a note that already covers the idea and add the URL and a quick summary. If a note doesn't exist, I'll add the core idea that interested me about it as a new note with the idea(s) summarized in my own words (maybe 1-3 sentences), then a reference in that note to the URL. I also try to summarize the link from memory instead of reading through it again. I'll only check the link's contents if I'm having trouble writing anything. If I'm feeling particularly productive, I might add any quotes or particular passages I remember as well (paraphrased, of course, I don't have an eidetic memory).

I've made a huge dent in my open tabs so far and I'm fairly happy with my progress in the past week.

edit: I briefly saw another comment about using OneTab (sorry, I haven't had the time to read any of the other comments yet) and my current attempt is partly based on how unhappy I am with OneTab. The addon itself is brilliant, but I've realized that I'll just save all the open tabs and then ... well, that's it. They're basically bookmarks again and it's like an information blackhole for me.

Keep trying. Try different methods. What works for me debugging and refactoring distributed systems may not work for you. The thing I tend to drive toward is a single page mind-map-like artifact that is monotonically increasing in density with a focus on system-of-record and data flow. I tend to keep notes about individual tech and important systems in whatever tools are handy, either locally or in a form that are accessible to the team. Often this takes the form of a JIRA page per topic, or an nvAlt note per topic. Tickets aren't great for this because they are ephemeral. These notes are where code snippets, error messages, anything searchable, go. I have something like the Zettlekasten[1] method in the back of my mind when deciding on scope of these support notes. However I may also start from a simple local text file, not committed to the repository, or even attached as a note to a ticket or other ephemeral trigger. But the thing that ties it all together, for me, is that mind map. Once I have that I can truly reason about the system.

1 - https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/

Well, the original one isn't unordered, and isn't meant fundamentally to be "searchable" (its original "implementation" being index cards).

Here's my attempt at conciseness:
A zettelkasten is like a bunch of files in a single folder with
1. a naming schema that kinda indicates what follows what (an ordering scheme, but persnickety and optional, see https://zettelkasten.de/posts/luhmann-folgezettel-truth/), and
2. links in between the files, originally just by writing the names to be manually looked for.

Some people use 2 to be able to get rid of 1, as with an indication of PREVIOUS (link) and NEXT (link)

The point is that you have one thing on each card / file that you might want to go back to on its own.

It makes a lot of sense in academia where you want to be able to trace ideas in a referenceable way, identify your own takes on bits of other people's work, and connect different sources together when you see similarities.

I am beginning to use a zettelkasten. I think it's an excellent method for doing deep thinking, especially over a long period of time. See https://www.seanlawson.net/2018/02/use-zettelkasten-method-scientific-note-taking/ and https://zoia.org/2018/11/13/zettelkasten/ for good introductions.

Reading this will change your life: https://www.amazon.com/How-Take-Smart-Notes-Nonfiction/dp/1542866502/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=how+to+take+smart+notes&qid=1559101000&s=books&sr=1-3

I'm committed to text-only information. No matter how many notes I'm writing, I can always use grep or write my own programs to find what I want.

If you're on a Mac, The Archive is great (https://zettelkasten.de/the-archive/). It's what I'm using

zettelkasten.de has lots of good reading (thanks, Sascha and Christian!), but look to the other sources I've listed to get a more thorough idea of what a zettelkasten is (I call mine a thinking-box) and how to use one.