Moving this item here from the Questions Category:
The biggest issue I’m running into is the one folder per collection limit. How can I create some internal organisation, to help make the menu list less overwhelming? I’d love for Notenik to have fully searchable and linkable subfolders.
Well, tags are the obvious way to organize your Notes within a Collection, since the Tags tab is always available, right next to the List tab. Also Tags can be multi-level, so that on the Tags tab you can open and close whatever tag or sub-tag you are currently interested in. Also, since you can have multi-level tags, and multiple multi-level tags per Note, you can use tags for multiple organizational paradigms, with the top-level of a tag indicating which paradigm you are using. Hope this makes sense!
Subfolders within a Collection would require a big rewrite of the app, so I am reluctant to take that on.
The ability to create wiki links from one Collection to another is probably much more doable, and something I’ve considered from time to time.
I’d be delighted to see this! Tags work, but would require me to take everything out of the current folder system I’m happy with, and dump all 6500+ files into one folder.
I’m hoping Notenik can be a tool to use on my text files, the same way I can currently use NotePlan, Logseq and Obsidian on the same group of files. Leverage the strength of each tool without needing to change the organisational structure.
I think this could be very useful, in particular when one collection defines some type of reference vocabulary/ ontology and others instances of it. Think, for example, of bird watching notes. The “bird book” (list of species, with notes on prevalence, habitats etc.) is one collection, my notes on what I’ve seen, where, photos etc. is another that references it.
In fact you can take this one step further and have the “bird book” reference another collection that defines holds a taxonomy of bird life. Then you have:
Collection: My Bird Notes - “House Sparrow” references collection Bird Book - “Passer Domesticus” references collection Taxonomy - Genus - “Passer” etc.
Each collection is at a difference level of generality. I can have several set of Bird Notes, each could theoretically reference more than one “Bird Book” (e.g. RSPB UK Birds, specialist books on sea birds etc.), but there is only one Taxonomy.
It also strikes me that making it possible to link into collections make them more shareable; anyone could save a collection – say the taxonomy – as a zipped tar file and upload it for others to use.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for this contribution to the dialogue, @GaiusScotius.
Just to be clear, what you describe is already very much possible in Notenik using the Lookup field. For example, I use this sort of linkage on the Practopian site to tie quotations to authors and their works – using three separate Collections.
I’m really on the fence about some of this. Because of Notenik’s extensive use of fields and field types, it’s really a different animal than Obsidian. I’m sympathetic to the idea of having one set of text files that can be used with Notenik or Obsidian (or something else), but at the same time I don’t want to slavishly try to imitate all of Obsidian’s features.
This is all good discussion, though, and will probably lead me to a few Notenik enhancements a little farther down the road.
I shall investigate lookup fields further; I thought it was just one level, didn’t realise that “looked up” notes could themselves have a lookup. Can notes have more than one lookup? Say I have two bird books, each separate collections, and want to link my field notes to both of them?
Yes, a single Note can have multiple lookup fields!
Version 10.3.0 is out, and it includes the ability to create wiki links between Collections. Would love to hear how this works out for others, once you get a chance to try it out.