I'm not a big fan of Zettelkästen for this reason, there is no need for those if you go through note refactors and make it a yearly routine (I combine it with OS reinstalls and trying new programs). I don't care about note program longevity for this reason, I'm not bound to a particular program because refactoring also means rewriting many notes from scratch, based on older notes and current knowledge.
This refactoring/rewriting is also a good refresher and helpful for really internalizing broader concepts (which you then can apply to other seemingly similar areas).
So instead of "java notes" and "design notes" you add the "java" and "design" tag, etc., so you can approach your notes in any direction: you can find "java" notes and then narrow the result sets to design notes (so java+design), and vice versa.
And you can add links too between the nodes, so you can also walk them in any order you define.
Existing tools can do this already, it's just a matter of using them.
Is there any more to zettelkasten? Its author invented the same thing on paper notes, but digital tools provide this naturally.
Zettelkasten is very simple and that is the point: You create small and connected notes. This constraint turns out to be useful for research and writing for some people.
There is no trick or secret to it.
i.e. you use one note document for 1 specific book and it might be 1500 words. but instead of linking the documents, you link specific words/paragraphs to other notes/paragraphs?
The gist is focused and self-contained notes, linked together to form structure and connections. A personal wiki with attention of recontextualization.
It takes effort to support this workflow. Notes have to be self-contained and of a somewhat permanent relevance. You don’t put raw reading and meeting notes there.
I wonder if I am doing it wrong. I certainly organize my notes into tree format when I am doing intensive reading on a book. This is to keep my head straight on what topics had been touched on by that book.
On occasions, I do opportunistic linking, however.
Most of the time, it’s more be beneficial to file notes according to the situation in which they’ll be useful rather than where they came from: If you’re going to have a tree structure, the original sources should be out at the leaves as external references rather than the root. This manifests in many forms from lots of different people giving advice:
In Getting Things Done, Allen spends a lot of time on the importance of organizing your todo lists by where you’ll be able to do the actions.
Luhmann used his original Zettelkasten to store passages that he could pull to make drafts of papers, and cross-referenced them to other passages that could be included together.
In How to Write a Thesis, Eco recommends writing a preliminary outline of your thesis and then tagging notes with the section number they’re relevant to.
In his MasterClass series, Chris Hadfield emphasizes the benefit of collecting summary notes organized by the interface you’ll see when actually performing an activity.
Normal notes are fighting complexity by creating smaller and smaller categories of notes
Example:
splitting "engineering notes" to "software notes" and "technical writing notes"
and then "software notes" to "java notes" and "design notes"
And this way the notes get deeper and deeper in your notebook and you stop interacting with them.
This described well my personal experience.
----
Zettelkasten fights this complexity by much more up-front work when adding and linking note, instead of a tree structure, you have a network.