Starting today, the Obsidian Commercial license is optional. Anyone can use Obsidian for work, for free. Explore organizations that support Obsidian on our new Enterprise page.
I’ve tried logseq for the last 6 months (no commercial license) at work, but while it’s really good for outlining, it’s lack of a tag function is what feels like a critical weakness to me. I realize structurally it’s different in concept. But making everything into bullets doesn’t always suit the task.
I would love Logseq for journalling or writing though.
I actually find the lack of distinction between a tag and a wiki link a breath of fresh air. So many other apps make a meaningless distinction between them and make you choose ahead of time a styleguide for how you plan to use both. Logseq makes a queryable style enforced and then you adapt to using it. Very different
Yes, but the syntax and documentation on the queries is obtuse as hell in logseq. Like it is ridiculous how granular you have a to get of you want to return all links within a time period or something. If I need to write SQL to pull notes, I should just use a database, lol.
The nice thing about tags as a distinct entity is it offers the option you can utilize if you choose. It gives you two buckets you can sort into and connect between. And it does make creating “topic groups” easier than manually linking them all to a tag page in logseq, imo.
Conversely, I would massively prefer of Logseq abolished support for hashtags entirely if they are functionally identical to wikilinks. Or combine them so the hashtags auto-convert to wikilinks or vice versa. But supporting hashtags in any manner when they are frankly not a “real” feature is more frustrating. Making topic links in Logseq is harder because of this.
Also, the existence of tag pages themselves is a confusong abberation given the above…
Logseq is a great tool, but very different in terms of what it is best suited to handle. I think I will revisit it for if I do a lot of writing, but for disparate ideas or notation it is good but could be better.
Just because other tools use # in other ways doesn’t mean they aren’t useful the way they are now in Logseq. It’s just a one character shorthand rather than four characters. I find tags as they are in Evernote and Obsidian exceedingly worthless for all but the most strictly organized individuals, not so in Logseq. Call them what you will.
A query is helpful when you need it, but rarely needed.
Obsidian dev’s original project Dynalist is an outline based notes app that does have tags. She doesn’t update it anymore but I still rely heavily on it as my second brain.
I’ve tried logseq for the last 6 months (no commercial license) at work, but while it’s really good for outlining, it’s lack of a tag function is what feels like a critical weakness to me. I realize structurally it’s different in concept. But making everything into bullets doesn’t always suit the task.
I would love Logseq for journalling or writing though.
I actually find the lack of distinction between a tag and a wiki link a breath of fresh air. So many other apps make a meaningless distinction between them and make you choose ahead of time a styleguide for how you plan to use both. Logseq makes a queryable style enforced and then you adapt to using it. Very different
Yes, but the syntax and documentation on the queries is obtuse as hell in logseq. Like it is ridiculous how granular you have a to get of you want to return all links within a time period or something. If I need to write SQL to pull notes, I should just use a database, lol.
The nice thing about tags as a distinct entity is it offers the option you can utilize if you choose. It gives you two buckets you can sort into and connect between. And it does make creating “topic groups” easier than manually linking them all to a tag page in logseq, imo.
Conversely, I would massively prefer of Logseq abolished support for hashtags entirely if they are functionally identical to wikilinks. Or combine them so the hashtags auto-convert to wikilinks or vice versa. But supporting hashtags in any manner when they are frankly not a “real” feature is more frustrating. Making topic links in Logseq is harder because of this.
Also, the existence of tag pages themselves is a confusong abberation given the above…
Logseq is a great tool, but very different in terms of what it is best suited to handle. I think I will revisit it for if I do a lot of writing, but for disparate ideas or notation it is good but could be better.
Just because other tools use # in other ways doesn’t mean they aren’t useful the way they are now in Logseq. It’s just a one character shorthand rather than four characters. I find tags as they are in Evernote and Obsidian exceedingly worthless for all but the most strictly organized individuals, not so in Logseq. Call them what you will.
A query is helpful when you need it, but rarely needed.
Obsidian dev’s original project Dynalist is an outline based notes app that does have tags. She doesn’t update it anymore but I still rely heavily on it as my second brain.
Interesting. I’ll have to give that one a shot later. Though I’m probably fine with Obsidian.