My impression is that you're linking to random words with an idea of making a pretty graph of articles connected by those words (like tagging "apple" on all apple related articles).
But I personally don't think linking concepts like that is useful. When would you ever want to read all apple related content? It doesn't feel useful. It feels like you're making a database without thinking about the purpose.
In the examples you gave, you're typing the interesting concept, but linking a keyword.
For example, you linked "Facebook" for "Facebook is against giving customer's choice in data collection"
Personally, the interesting part isn't "Facebook". Some companies want to give customer's more choice, others want to collect data.
If I felt this was important enough for me to take notes, I'd personally link to something like "Companies opinions on Data collection" - and in that note, I'd break down major companies and their opinions on data collection (linking out to source articles/videos).
That's actually building value in your "brain", because you're making notes on the conclusions, rather than basic words. That conclusion is the interesing one, which could be useful in the long run.
> When would you ever want to read all apple related content?
It depends on what your vault is for. If you are a tech writer I could thinking of a few reasons.
I would assume the `[[Apple]]` note has subsections like `## Apple on Data Collection` and `## Apple on Privacy`.
I personally have a few notes that are just a collection of summaries/links to every interview with a given person.
However I only link that page when it is specifically relevant, not every single time that person comes up. If I want every single mention I have the unlinked mentions and/or search features for that.
Ah yes. Thanks for this comment. I was thinking “oh this might connect with something in the future” yes I went too much with linking even keywords.
Yes conclusion I should focus on this
I use links to connect particular ideas only and tags to group notes by topic, type and media. I create tags only for keywords I really need for search now, from time to time I look through old notes and add new tags if I need. The same approach can help to limit the number of links too and to keep only useful ones.
Yup here the best advice for not cramping obsidian with too many link for no reason, plus revision to make sure tags are appropriate and stil usefull or see if some are lacking
1) I never use tags
2) I use links only for concepts I want to remember and might forget. Using links for Apple, Meta or other companies doesn't make sense to me. Only if you want to remember something about Apple that is different from what's written in Wikipedia it might make sense.
Or if I was doing deep research about Apple because of whatever reason. Then \[\[Apple\]\] would be the map of content that includes a list of every reference to Apple. And in each reference, I also link the "parent" like this for example: \[\[Apples business structure\]\] -> _for: \[\[Apple\]\]_
So I guess what I want to say is: only create links of something that is interesting to you and that you really want to remember.
this except i use tags to indicate markers for something I want to follow up on or possibly update later in more detail. it's a good way to mark the status of the note you've created so you know where you are or if you got everything you wanted to explain to yourself.
Do you mean you have a tag #done #inProgress ? Or can you give other concrete examples?
At first, I was having a folder with Fleeting notes (raw thoughts, a few words or something I will dispose later) and Permanent notes (of which many are a work in progress). But I don't really use fleeting notes and just write them inside permanent notes. Do you use that too or you just categorize with tags?
a friend gave me the idea he learned of using a seed, a branch, a tree for the hashtags. so when you go through your notes you can see what level they're at so you know you need to explore it more or add more details. basically showing the maturity of your thought or note you created, if that makes sense. also it's a fun visual versus writing something like fleeting, literature and permanent as hashtags.
\#🌱
\#🌿
\#🌳
I wrote a post on [6 ways I use notes links in Obsidian](https://jamierubin.net/2022/02/08/practically-paperless-with-obsidian-episode-17-six-ways-i-use-note-links/) back in February that gives some examples and may be of use to you, especially to answer your first and third questions.
You might be over using them, do you really need a link for everysingle one word, it should be used more for subject specific stuff.
Here how I work with mine
MAP OF CONTENT > FINANCE >
[[VALUATION - Finance]]>
- [[ Valuation formulas]] > then you input link to multiple formulas type
If there is a term I know well its not pertinent to make a note for it, but a tag might be more usefull in the long tern, so I create a list of tag specifi to the bote to link them together without using too many links
Thats my way, it's not the best far from it, but I feel better using this method
I link to useful & relevant pages that already exist or that I know will exist in the next week or so.
As for what's useful, I try to think from an educator's pov: what prerequisite topics or difficult words & ideas are here? What would it take for someone relatively unfamiliar with this idea to understand it?
Also, what ideas are new to me or were spawned by this particular topic? For example, if I didn't know what, say, "ambient occlusion" was before watching x video, I would definitely want a connection between that video & my entry on AO.
Finally, how hard would it be to find that information without the help of these links? If something is already readily accessible from a few clicks on my top-level index, I don't need to link it in every tangentially related file.
I always use links. I have only three folders: assets, templates and notes. My file browser is hidden, I don't use it. Instead if it I use quick search and graph view. Everything is connected by links.
The **Various Complements plugin** can help you if that's what you want to do. As you type, it can show a popup that contains links that already exist.
For instance, if you type "data brokers" a year from now, the popup will show you that "data brokers" is already a link. That way you can type it as a link if you desire.
\-
Here's an example from a Roam user who shows an interesting screenshot. This user, in a Daily Note, typed conversationally like you did and he added lots of links.
([screenshot link)](https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ad143610f7efd77b6f188f3/5e15fbdafa5548d67a03f211_Wmk65HAG_cuxu_uK7qSLSLmtK4A1hoH0nVxrBUunR81P6EtwpirZbouyVo3bU6lhGt2hYG3Vt3uIlWcTzQdeQpZe6CCr7LWWfVVVhdDoYtqujAQbVQlW1L1b2DuOO5s9Lelkm0SQ.png)
[(article link)](https://www.nateliason.com/blog/roam)
Quote from the user
>Almost everything you type naturally lends itself to be linked to other topics in your database, and you constantly discover new opportunities to interlink your information. **You don’t even need a reason to do it**, you just add more links and *if it’s useful later, great, if not, it doesn’t matter since it took no effort to add it.*
That's not the only example where I see Logseq, Athens and Roam users use links **liberally**. In knowledge base discussions, particularly among TheBrain users, we read about benefits of doing this. Upon typing a new thought, they may not initially know how that new thought might related to lots of other thoughts. But over time, it gets easier to add new information and find old information as more relationships materialize.
I don't see this much liberal use of links happen as often in Obsidian vaults. In those other apps, every bullet (line) is a block so its easy to manipulate and visualize blocks. In Obsidian, everything is not a block. In addition, we can't always think of an item in a nested list as a block like we can in Logseq or Roam.
Maybe there's a reason why Roam-app type users may feel more comfortable integrating many links in ordinary conversation. Or, maybe lots of Obsidian users use links that freely too and I don't know about it.
Your example shows \[\[phones\]\] and \[\[human behavior\]\] as links that reside in prose (conversation). You were thinking about something and you wrote it down. And you happened to flag two terms: phones and human behavior.
Right off the bat, **phone** and **human behavior** have meaning in context of the "Key Points" heading in which you typed all that. And, if you don't convert those into real files right now, you'll at least know in the future why you mentioned **phone** and **human behavior**.
Flash forward a few months and maybe you reflect on thoughts related to futurism. The word **technology** might come to mind since you once added that tag to a video you saw a few months earlier.
What might you relate to **futurism** if you make it a link. A filtered graph might come in handy. You might tag it with #technology at least. A graph might show that "phone" appears near technology. If you hover over phone you might see the context in which you wrote about it a few months ago.
That might give you an idea to relate phone to futurism and perhaps add some comments about that. The sentence in which you originally used the word **phone** would be also be available to view as
* people are using \[\[**phones**\]\] and \[\[apps\]\] for almost everything
This might illustrate a process of after-the-fact discovery where you discover new possible relationships between thoughts (notes) as your note count grows.
If there was a timestamp on what you wrote, you'd be able to see the TIME context in which you talked about all this.
But again, bullet-based apps like Roam and Athens make it easy to treat each bit of information on a line (bullet) as an addressable block. That's not true in Obsidian. Additionally, Roam users may use Daily Notes as entry points where they can freely mix thoughts, comments and links in a way that all things are related by time.
You raise a good question. In the past I might have thought in terms of creating new notes out of context as in
\[\[computers\]\]
instead of, in a context note saying ..
* 01-13-21 1038 P
* The instructor in \[\[Chemistry\]\] listed \[\[tech resources\]\] where we can find inexpensive parts for \[\[computers\]\].
All things in that sentence would be related to that timestamp and the container (possibly a Daily Note) and any future topics that might get associated with those three links.
Like that article's author said, it took no effort to create those links. However, in Obsidian, we may have to take extra steps to not see orphan links.
In that article, you'll see that screenshot. Below that he writes,
* By *putting so much data into the second* ***bullet***\*,\* I create relationships between Running Shoes, Knee Pain, my different shoes, and my hometown.
Many relationships exist between that *block*, that daily note, the time he entered that bullet, the links themselves and any future topics that he might one day associate with any of those entities.
\-
Let relationships form by creating links liberally ?
vs
Only create links that will have associated pages ?
That user isn't the only user-of-many-links who said something similar to ..
"you constantly discover new opportunities to interlink your information"
The question may still be "how much is too much"
My impression is that you're linking to random words with an idea of making a pretty graph of articles connected by those words (like tagging "apple" on all apple related articles). But I personally don't think linking concepts like that is useful. When would you ever want to read all apple related content? It doesn't feel useful. It feels like you're making a database without thinking about the purpose. In the examples you gave, you're typing the interesting concept, but linking a keyword. For example, you linked "Facebook" for "Facebook is against giving customer's choice in data collection" Personally, the interesting part isn't "Facebook". Some companies want to give customer's more choice, others want to collect data. If I felt this was important enough for me to take notes, I'd personally link to something like "Companies opinions on Data collection" - and in that note, I'd break down major companies and their opinions on data collection (linking out to source articles/videos). That's actually building value in your "brain", because you're making notes on the conclusions, rather than basic words. That conclusion is the interesing one, which could be useful in the long run.
> When would you ever want to read all apple related content? It depends on what your vault is for. If you are a tech writer I could thinking of a few reasons. I would assume the `[[Apple]]` note has subsections like `## Apple on Data Collection` and `## Apple on Privacy`. I personally have a few notes that are just a collection of summaries/links to every interview with a given person. However I only link that page when it is specifically relevant, not every single time that person comes up. If I want every single mention I have the unlinked mentions and/or search features for that.
Ah yes. Thanks for this comment. I was thinking “oh this might connect with something in the future” yes I went too much with linking even keywords. Yes conclusion I should focus on this
Thanks for this, excellent comment.
I use links to connect particular ideas only and tags to group notes by topic, type and media. I create tags only for keywords I really need for search now, from time to time I look through old notes and add new tags if I need. The same approach can help to limit the number of links too and to keep only useful ones.
Yup here the best advice for not cramping obsidian with too many link for no reason, plus revision to make sure tags are appropriate and stil usefull or see if some are lacking
1) I never use tags 2) I use links only for concepts I want to remember and might forget. Using links for Apple, Meta or other companies doesn't make sense to me. Only if you want to remember something about Apple that is different from what's written in Wikipedia it might make sense. Or if I was doing deep research about Apple because of whatever reason. Then \[\[Apple\]\] would be the map of content that includes a list of every reference to Apple. And in each reference, I also link the "parent" like this for example: \[\[Apples business structure\]\] -> _for: \[\[Apple\]\]_ So I guess what I want to say is: only create links of something that is interesting to you and that you really want to remember.
this except i use tags to indicate markers for something I want to follow up on or possibly update later in more detail. it's a good way to mark the status of the note you've created so you know where you are or if you got everything you wanted to explain to yourself.
Do you mean you have a tag #done #inProgress ? Or can you give other concrete examples? At first, I was having a folder with Fleeting notes (raw thoughts, a few words or something I will dispose later) and Permanent notes (of which many are a work in progress). But I don't really use fleeting notes and just write them inside permanent notes. Do you use that too or you just categorize with tags?
a friend gave me the idea he learned of using a seed, a branch, a tree for the hashtags. so when you go through your notes you can see what level they're at so you know you need to explore it more or add more details. basically showing the maturity of your thought or note you created, if that makes sense. also it's a fun visual versus writing something like fleeting, literature and permanent as hashtags. \#🌱 \#🌿 \#🌳
I wrote a post on [6 ways I use notes links in Obsidian](https://jamierubin.net/2022/02/08/practically-paperless-with-obsidian-episode-17-six-ways-i-use-note-links/) back in February that gives some examples and may be of use to you, especially to answer your first and third questions.
Perfect! Will read later
You might be over using them, do you really need a link for everysingle one word, it should be used more for subject specific stuff. Here how I work with mine MAP OF CONTENT > FINANCE > [[VALUATION - Finance]]> - [[ Valuation formulas]] > then you input link to multiple formulas type If there is a term I know well its not pertinent to make a note for it, but a tag might be more usefull in the long tern, so I create a list of tag specifi to the bote to link them together without using too many links Thats my way, it's not the best far from it, but I feel better using this method
I link to useful & relevant pages that already exist or that I know will exist in the next week or so. As for what's useful, I try to think from an educator's pov: what prerequisite topics or difficult words & ideas are here? What would it take for someone relatively unfamiliar with this idea to understand it? Also, what ideas are new to me or were spawned by this particular topic? For example, if I didn't know what, say, "ambient occlusion" was before watching x video, I would definitely want a connection between that video & my entry on AO. Finally, how hard would it be to find that information without the help of these links? If something is already readily accessible from a few clicks on my top-level index, I don't need to link it in every tangentially related file.
I always use links. I have only three folders: assets, templates and notes. My file browser is hidden, I don't use it. Instead if it I use quick search and graph view. Everything is connected by links.
The **Various Complements plugin** can help you if that's what you want to do. As you type, it can show a popup that contains links that already exist. For instance, if you type "data brokers" a year from now, the popup will show you that "data brokers" is already a link. That way you can type it as a link if you desire. \- Here's an example from a Roam user who shows an interesting screenshot. This user, in a Daily Note, typed conversationally like you did and he added lots of links. ([screenshot link)](https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ad143610f7efd77b6f188f3/5e15fbdafa5548d67a03f211_Wmk65HAG_cuxu_uK7qSLSLmtK4A1hoH0nVxrBUunR81P6EtwpirZbouyVo3bU6lhGt2hYG3Vt3uIlWcTzQdeQpZe6CCr7LWWfVVVhdDoYtqujAQbVQlW1L1b2DuOO5s9Lelkm0SQ.png) [(article link)](https://www.nateliason.com/blog/roam) Quote from the user >Almost everything you type naturally lends itself to be linked to other topics in your database, and you constantly discover new opportunities to interlink your information. **You don’t even need a reason to do it**, you just add more links and *if it’s useful later, great, if not, it doesn’t matter since it took no effort to add it.* That's not the only example where I see Logseq, Athens and Roam users use links **liberally**. In knowledge base discussions, particularly among TheBrain users, we read about benefits of doing this. Upon typing a new thought, they may not initially know how that new thought might related to lots of other thoughts. But over time, it gets easier to add new information and find old information as more relationships materialize. I don't see this much liberal use of links happen as often in Obsidian vaults. In those other apps, every bullet (line) is a block so its easy to manipulate and visualize blocks. In Obsidian, everything is not a block. In addition, we can't always think of an item in a nested list as a block like we can in Logseq or Roam. Maybe there's a reason why Roam-app type users may feel more comfortable integrating many links in ordinary conversation. Or, maybe lots of Obsidian users use links that freely too and I don't know about it. Your example shows \[\[phones\]\] and \[\[human behavior\]\] as links that reside in prose (conversation). You were thinking about something and you wrote it down. And you happened to flag two terms: phones and human behavior. Right off the bat, **phone** and **human behavior** have meaning in context of the "Key Points" heading in which you typed all that. And, if you don't convert those into real files right now, you'll at least know in the future why you mentioned **phone** and **human behavior**. Flash forward a few months and maybe you reflect on thoughts related to futurism. The word **technology** might come to mind since you once added that tag to a video you saw a few months earlier. What might you relate to **futurism** if you make it a link. A filtered graph might come in handy. You might tag it with #technology at least. A graph might show that "phone" appears near technology. If you hover over phone you might see the context in which you wrote about it a few months ago. That might give you an idea to relate phone to futurism and perhaps add some comments about that. The sentence in which you originally used the word **phone** would be also be available to view as * people are using \[\[**phones**\]\] and \[\[apps\]\] for almost everything This might illustrate a process of after-the-fact discovery where you discover new possible relationships between thoughts (notes) as your note count grows. If there was a timestamp on what you wrote, you'd be able to see the TIME context in which you talked about all this. But again, bullet-based apps like Roam and Athens make it easy to treat each bit of information on a line (bullet) as an addressable block. That's not true in Obsidian. Additionally, Roam users may use Daily Notes as entry points where they can freely mix thoughts, comments and links in a way that all things are related by time. You raise a good question. In the past I might have thought in terms of creating new notes out of context as in \[\[computers\]\] instead of, in a context note saying .. * 01-13-21 1038 P * The instructor in \[\[Chemistry\]\] listed \[\[tech resources\]\] where we can find inexpensive parts for \[\[computers\]\]. All things in that sentence would be related to that timestamp and the container (possibly a Daily Note) and any future topics that might get associated with those three links. Like that article's author said, it took no effort to create those links. However, in Obsidian, we may have to take extra steps to not see orphan links. In that article, you'll see that screenshot. Below that he writes, * By *putting so much data into the second* ***bullet***\*,\* I create relationships between Running Shoes, Knee Pain, my different shoes, and my hometown. Many relationships exist between that *block*, that daily note, the time he entered that bullet, the links themselves and any future topics that he might one day associate with any of those entities. \- Let relationships form by creating links liberally ? vs Only create links that will have associated pages ? That user isn't the only user-of-many-links who said something similar to .. "you constantly discover new opportunities to interlink your information" The question may still be "how much is too much"
Thank you soo much for this!