What a great discussion .. informative, helpful, interesting well grounded perspectives from 3 experts with slightly differing views helping to move this whole NTA / PKM arena forward. The friendly and amusing deliver by all made it seem like a quick 2 hrs .. Thanks all ! - love to hear more from all of you together again at some point. (currently I have been trying to decide which side of this O/L fence to land on .. Obsidian is more polished with fully function phone app whilst Logseq seems to have a few rough edges especially on ios, but to me overall ‘feels’ just a bit cleaner more productive/free flowing base to work from. Your discussions have given me a few other things to think about - Thx
I agree that Obsidian's block- and heading-level control, while great, is not as polished as Logseq and wish it were more streamlined. But I also like having the option to sometimes type in document form instead of bullet-point form since I can then easily copy out of Obsidian and into an email or blog post. I wish the best of Logseq/outliners could be combined into Obsidian so you can still store files as (bulletless) markdown, yet be able to still take advantage of many of the outlining features that Logseq offers.
Until that time, one easy solve might be to just copy and paste with bullet points and then do a "find and replace" that replaces the dash + space with nothing (this would just delete the dash + space that obsidian bullets have). It's an extra step, but not too bad overall
@@matrhein Does that plugin allow the files to be stored as markdown as well (and not appear as a list of bullet points in a third-party markdown renderer or text file viewer)?
Obsidian can do it all 🦾😋 I think a lot of people are overwhelmed by the many plugins, which is luxury problem to have. I think it's best to just think as the plugins as different settings that can be turned on or off. Of course, often they're more than that, but given that basic functions like search, recent files etc. are plugins, it's not too far off.
@@DannyHatcherTech 100%, they pretty much all feel native to me as well, so I can't see the argument either. I think it might come from browser plugins, that can be a bit wonky sometimes, giving plugins a bad reputation in general. In Obsidian, almost all of them integrate so well, nobody could tell if it they were plugins or core features.
In my experience, doing outlines in Obsidian is really fiddly. The indents are sometimes formatted wrong, the plugins sometimes create more problems than solving them, and indenting and zooming in feel... unsafe? It could be more refined. In LogSeq, hide the bullets if you don't like to see them. In the end, it really comes down to what you want to use first of all. While you can open your LogSeq vault in Obsidian, it looks ugly. The other way around is a little easier, but ultimately, it's either/or as I see it.
@@kevinfernandes7216 Funny thing - thanks to Danny's I casually checked back with Obsidian and found - who would've guessed it - a plugin of nearly everything that annoyed me with it. To the outliner plugin: it is not native as in LogSeq, but managing indentations is frictionless, the only thing I am missing is easily moving bullets within the outline. Also, the presentation feature is much better in LogSeq. but then again, as I am accessing the same database, I can simply use it for that purpose. Apart from that, calendar handling and reviewing information is so much easier in Obsidian. Thank You for the discussion that sparked it all.
Obsidian is a much more polished application, IMO. Looks better, feels snappier, and every single plugin are designed to match (and integrate) with the app itself. I love the outliner in Logseq, but that’s pretty much it. When you install plugins in Logseq, pretty much every single plugin looks different, I’m talking design and buttons etc. So for me, Logseq itself is a nice application, but everything else feels very very unfinished (and ugly). Anyway, I have made the decision to get rid of both apps, and use something native to macOS. All the Electron stuff just makes me crazy lately… I don’t need all the bells and whistles, and when it comes down to text editing, BBEdit and/or Neovim (LunarVim) is a much better alternative to both Obsidian and Logseq.
20:02 How can this example be implemented in Obsidian? E.g. find all tasks with a specific tag, or find all tasks nested under a block with a specific task? Danny suggests this is possible with Plugins, but I'm not sure exactly how.
You can do it in the core search option but requires understanding of more complex search syntax. The dataview community plugin gives you that option and you can add fields, organize by groups, filter, sort and many other things. The tasks plugin also lets you do all of these things will more flexibility on task information like due, scheduled, done dates etc. All depends what, how, where, and why you want to see the tasks.
@@DannyHatcherTech relevant topics - for instance I wanted to consolidate everything related to "product sense". In Obsi I can obviously do advance text like find me everything that has a combo of "product sense" OR "taste" OR "product taste". However it just finds everything that is irrelevant to it given that there is a tag or something with "sense" on it. In Logseq I just CMD +K => insert "Product taste" and it just give me all relevant results. I generally noticed a pattern that resurfacing thoughts / notes in Logseq just comes more naturally than in Obsi (and I am a big supporter on that one as well). Still trying to figure out why.
@@DannyHatcherTech isn't it subjective based on your own context? In that specific case it was looking for all mentions of a very specific phenomenon or pattern.
I felt like Danny at the beginning was trying too hard to defend Obsidian or promote Obsidian rather than taking a bird's eye view and talking about pros and cons. I have never used Logseq but I felt it was clear what was meant by "design philosophy." Nothing in the UX of Obsidian drives users to moving blocks like that. I used to use Notion and it had some features that felt more like that. Which was cool. I liked that I could use hotkeys OR the mouse. Visual displays designed for mouse users inform keyboard users what actions they SHOULD be taking. They are key ways to guide user behavior, and if controlled by theming they are a negligible nuisance to people who do not want them.
@@DannyHatcherTech I hope you don't mind if i butt into the convo, but I have a perspective of someone who came to Obsidian from Roam, and got the chance to try both the atomic block-level approach (Roam and Logsec) the and page-level approach (Obsidian). Conceptually Obsidian's page linking is a flat structure. All pages are equal, so you have to create your own structure if you want hierarchical relationship between atomic ideas. One of the only structures that Obsidian's UX is robust at is [[linking]] (headings and blocks are fragile its a whole other argument). In Logsec with outline structure you have implicit relationships between ideas that create a hierarchy by simply nesting (parent-child, and sibling-sibling relationships), and Logsec capitalises on this better than Obsidian. It's better in various subtle ways that you notice when using: backlinks tab includes the context/breadcrumbs of where the block 'belongs', you can super easily drag and drop blocks, embed with a draging+hotkey, edit embeds inline (in Obsidian you need to open the embed link which adds friction from context switching). Just a lot of quality of life features that show developer's attention to this way of organising. I'll try a more tactile metaphor. Obsidian is kind of like UA-cam comments while Logsec is more like Twitter or Reddit where it lets you thread replies and create chains of thought by just nesting blocks. It's just another type of link that Obsidian is not (yet?) emphasizing. Atomic blocks is a tricky thing and wrap your head around. Even when using Logsec full-time it would take a while until the aha moment. That said, the block-level thinking is not perfect or even good for writing finished work I've noticed that Roam-like UX pushes me to unravel what I read into these long threads/trees and the page ends up looking (and feeling) like pulled pork. It's not so bad I guess, because I can still understand and read it, but if I had to hand it to someone else (like a dissertation superviser 😬) they'll think you're taking the mick. Also this outline structure becomes impossible to navigate if the app is discontinued (fine for open source app that could branch but not so much for a closed app. For me tho, most importantly, when using Roam the outline threads added a step or even a rift between thinking and writing the final piece. When do you take your yarn threads of thought and pull them into a ball of finished text? After all what you publish or submit in the end has to be a wall of text and not an outline. Hope this makes sense if you withstood this behemoth of a comment.
@@nickmironenko5031 really appreciate it! I see both sides i just dont grasp the benefit of the block approach and its 'easing' of the writing process. I am still waiting for an example where i can say, "that is better than what i can do in Obsidian". PS i dont think i will find it, but i dont know what i dont knkw
A note-taking app isn’t meant to hold tasks and todos. Your task manager should be as clean as possible and only hold important things. Better to link to relevant notes/projects. Keep things separate, IMO.
What a great discussion .. informative, helpful, interesting well grounded perspectives from 3 experts with slightly differing views helping to move this whole NTA / PKM arena forward. The friendly and amusing deliver by all made it seem like a quick 2 hrs .. Thanks all ! - love to hear more from all of you together again at some point.
(currently I have been trying to decide which side of this O/L fence to land on .. Obsidian is more polished with fully function phone app whilst Logseq seems to have a few rough edges especially on ios, but to me overall ‘feels’ just a bit cleaner more productive/free flowing base to work from. Your discussions have given me a few other things to think about - Thx
Logseq is a good tool, but for those that have more technical understanding.
I think Obsidian is more expandable with the plugin ecosystem.
I agree that Obsidian's block- and heading-level control, while great, is not as polished as Logseq and wish it were more streamlined. But I also like having the option to sometimes type in document form instead of bullet-point form since I can then easily copy out of Obsidian and into an email or blog post. I wish the best of Logseq/outliners could be combined into Obsidian so you can still store files as (bulletless) markdown, yet be able to still take advantage of many of the outlining features that Logseq offers.
Until that time, one easy solve might be to just copy and paste with bullet points and then do a "find and replace" that replaces the dash + space with nothing (this would just delete the dash + space that obsidian bullets have). It's an extra step, but not too bad overall
I still dont see what logse/outliners have that Obsidian doesnt do well 🤷♂️
Doc view plugin solves that in LogSeq. You can also hide the bullets with key commands.
@@matrhein Does that plugin allow the files to be stored as markdown as well (and not appear as a list of bullet points in a third-party markdown renderer or text file viewer)?
@@ryanwwest No, the plugin won't, it exports html. but you can open that in Word and have a clean document without any bullets.
I enjoyed the video!
Thanks, great to hear 🧡
Obsidian can do it all 🦾😋
I think a lot of people are overwhelmed by the many plugins, which is luxury problem to have. I think it's best to just think as the plugins as different settings that can be turned on or off. Of course, often they're more than that, but given that basic functions like search, recent files etc. are plugins, it's not too far off.
I see all pligins as setting options, which is why the 'native' argument to me isnt very strong 🤷♂️
Then again i am biased 😆
@@DannyHatcherTech 100%, they pretty much all feel native to me as well, so I can't see the argument either. I think it might come from browser plugins, that can be a bit wonky sometimes, giving plugins a bad reputation in general. In Obsidian, almost all of them integrate so well, nobody could tell if it they were plugins or core features.
In my experience, doing outlines in Obsidian is really fiddly. The indents are sometimes formatted wrong, the plugins sometimes create more problems than solving them, and indenting and zooming in feel... unsafe? It could be more refined. In LogSeq, hide the bullets if you don't like to see them. In the end, it really comes down to what you want to use first of all. While you can open your LogSeq vault in Obsidian, it looks ugly. The other way around is a little easier, but ultimately, it's either/or as I see it.
agreed with the either or.
I agree doing outlines in Obsidian is really fiddly now. I really hope the Outliner plugin improves a lot more.
@@kevinfernandes7216 what makes it fiddly?
I use the defualt hotkeys to navigate all the points
@@kevinfernandes7216 Funny thing - thanks to Danny's I casually checked back with Obsidian and found - who would've guessed it - a plugin of nearly everything that annoyed me with it. To the outliner plugin: it is not native as in LogSeq, but managing indentations is frictionless, the only thing I am missing is easily moving bullets within the outline. Also, the presentation feature is much better in LogSeq. but then again, as I am accessing the same database, I can simply use it for that purpose. Apart from that, calendar handling and reviewing information is so much easier in Obsidian. Thank You for the discussion that sparked it all.
Obsidian (and Danny Hatcher, ironic judge and Obsidian defender) vs Logseq...
Yup
Obsidian is a much more polished application, IMO. Looks better, feels snappier, and every single plugin are designed to match (and integrate) with the app itself. I love the outliner in Logseq, but that’s pretty much it. When you install plugins in Logseq, pretty much every single plugin looks different, I’m talking design and buttons etc. So for me, Logseq itself is a nice application, but everything else feels very very unfinished (and ugly). Anyway, I have made the decision to get rid of both apps, and use something native to macOS. All the Electron stuff just makes me crazy lately… I don’t need all the bells and whistles, and when it comes down to text editing, BBEdit and/or Neovim (LunarVim) is a much better alternative to both Obsidian and Logseq.
Sounds like you are sorted 💪
20:02 How can this example be implemented in Obsidian? E.g. find all tasks with a specific tag, or find all tasks nested under a block with a specific task? Danny suggests this is possible with Plugins, but I'm not sure exactly how.
You can do it in the core search option but requires understanding of more complex search syntax.
The dataview community plugin gives you that option and you can add fields, organize by groups, filter, sort and many other things.
The tasks plugin also lets you do all of these things will more flexibility on task information like due, scheduled, done dates etc.
All depends what, how, where, and why you want to see the tasks.
Fascinating, the search in Obsi totally fails for me compared to logseq in terms of resurfacing relevancy...
Interesting, what are you searching for?
Lines, files, heading, tasks etc..
@@DannyHatcherTech relevant topics - for instance I wanted to consolidate everything related to "product sense". In Obsi I can obviously do advance text like find me everything that has a combo of "product sense" OR "taste" OR "product taste". However it just finds everything that is irrelevant to it given that there is a tag or something with "sense" on it.
In Logseq I just CMD +K => insert "Product taste" and it just give me all relevant results.
I generally noticed a pattern that resurfacing thoughts / notes in Logseq just comes more naturally than in Obsi (and I am a big supporter on that one as well). Still trying to figure out why.
@@kirso I think the important part there is relevent. How do you know what is and isn't relevent...
@@DannyHatcherTech isn't it subjective based on your own context? In that specific case it was looking for all mentions of a very specific phenomenon or pattern.
Tags and backlinks look better in Obsidian since you can filter them more easily and it will automatically match up tag/pages combinations
Agreed
I felt like Danny at the beginning was trying too hard to defend Obsidian or promote Obsidian rather than taking a bird's eye view and talking about pros and cons.
I have never used Logseq but I felt it was clear what was meant by "design philosophy." Nothing in the UX of Obsidian drives users to moving blocks like that.
I used to use Notion and it had some features that felt more like that. Which was cool. I liked that I could use hotkeys OR the mouse. Visual displays designed for mouse users inform keyboard users what actions they SHOULD be taking. They are key ways to guide user behavior, and if controlled by theming they are a negligible nuisance to people who do not want them.
I have an Obsidian bias obviously, but i am not sure what point your trying to make. Could you elaborate?
@@DannyHatcherTech I hope you don't mind if i butt into the convo, but I have a perspective of someone who came to Obsidian from Roam, and got the chance to try both the atomic block-level approach (Roam and Logsec) the and page-level approach (Obsidian).
Conceptually Obsidian's page linking is a flat structure. All pages are equal, so you have to create your own structure if you want hierarchical relationship between atomic ideas. One of the only structures that Obsidian's UX is robust at is [[linking]] (headings and blocks are fragile its a whole other argument). In Logsec with outline structure you have implicit relationships between ideas that create a hierarchy by simply nesting (parent-child, and sibling-sibling relationships), and Logsec capitalises on this better than Obsidian.
It's better in various subtle ways that you notice when using: backlinks tab includes the context/breadcrumbs of where the block 'belongs', you can super easily drag and drop blocks, embed with a draging+hotkey, edit embeds inline (in Obsidian you need to open the embed link which adds friction from context switching). Just a lot of quality of life features that show developer's attention to this way of organising.
I'll try a more tactile metaphor. Obsidian is kind of like UA-cam comments while Logsec is more like Twitter or Reddit where it lets you thread replies and create chains of thought by just nesting blocks. It's just another type of link that Obsidian is not (yet?) emphasizing. Atomic blocks is a tricky thing and wrap your head around. Even when using Logsec full-time it would take a while until the aha moment.
That said, the block-level thinking is not perfect or even good for writing finished work I've noticed that Roam-like UX pushes me to unravel what I read into these long threads/trees and the page ends up looking (and feeling) like pulled pork. It's not so bad I guess, because I can still understand and read it, but if I had to hand it to someone else (like a dissertation superviser 😬) they'll think you're taking the mick. Also this outline structure becomes impossible to navigate if the app is discontinued (fine for open source app that could branch but not so much for a closed app.
For me tho, most importantly, when using Roam the outline threads added a step or even a rift between thinking and writing the final piece. When do you take your yarn threads of thought and pull them into a ball of finished text? After all what you publish or submit in the end has to be a wall of text and not an outline.
Hope this makes sense if you withstood this behemoth of a comment.
@@nickmironenko5031 really appreciate it! I see both sides i just dont grasp the benefit of the block approach and its 'easing' of the writing process. I am still waiting for an example where i can say, "that is better than what i can do in Obsidian".
PS i dont think i will find it, but i dont know what i dont knkw
@@nickmironenko5031 love the UA-cam vs Twitter analogy 🙌🏽
logseg uses GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
👍
A note-taking app isn’t meant to hold tasks and todos. Your task manager should be as clean as possible and only hold important things. Better to link to relevant notes/projects. Keep things separate, IMO.
I think tasks and actions related to the writing should be in the tool you are using.