Note limits: Your experiences?

[James Longley 90]

Has anyone here hit the 50,000+ note mark? Have you noticed any changes in Evernote's performance as your number of notes reaches higher levels?

[gazumped 11,652]

Hi.  I'm into 53,000 and counting.  Things are definitely slower... but I'm still trucking along (on an old creaky laptop - which might be a factor...). 

Also on the old Windows version: 6.25.1

[PinkElephant 8,077]

There is an absolute Maximum of 100.000 notes per account ...

Using zettelkasten plus modern abilities to create digital content this limit may be closer than it seems.

[James Longley 90]

5 minutes ago, PinkElephant said:

There is an absolute Maximum of 100.000 notes per account ...

Using zettelkasten plus modern abilities to create digital content this limit may be closer than it seems.

True and it's something I'm mindful of. In fairness though Luhmann only managed 90k-odd and I'm not expecting to hit quite his rate.

[PinkElephant 8,077]

This guy wrote everything by hand, or cut and glued stuff in paper, and created the links by hand as well.

It goes on turbo mode when you can clip the content digitally, and maybe have some AI do the linking. Zettelkasten on speed ...

[CalS 5,280]

53,686 at this point of which 8,202 are local.  Still running 6.25.1 with no slowdowns operationally, pretty much instantaneous response time for all searches.  Seven year old docked laptop with an SSD and two monitors, EN always open on the right monitor.  As best I can I prevent any spurious Windows routines or other apps from running.

The only time I might see a lag is when I modify a PDF or when I empty the trash.

[James Longley 90]

13 hours ago, PinkElephant said:

This guy wrote everything by hand, or cut and glued stuff in paper, and created the links by hand as well.

It goes on turbo mode when you can clip the content digitally, and maybe have some AI do the linking. Zettelkasten on speed ...

The auto backlinking is one of the reasons I stay away from tools like Roam. An interesting article from zettelkasten.de on the topic: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/backlinks-are-bad-links/

[gazumped 11,652]

4 hours ago, James | Headquarters said:

The auto backlinking is one of the reasons I stay away from tools like Roam. An interesting article from zettelkasten.de on the topic: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/backlinks-are-bad-links/

It's a point of view,  but like any process backlinking isn't a bad thing provided you use it correctly.  IMHO it's wasteful to keep on describing devices or processes each time they're mentioned,  so linking to a [[continuum transfunctioner]] when you mention it in context is useful to ensure that every reader of that entry is on exactly the same page as to the definition of the device.  Likewise should a practice ever change to use a different device, it's easy to link to that instead.

For internal use,  the linked text could be acceptable - a quick lookup and return to the narrative enables readers to understand exactly what is intended here.

For external use or training,  it would be better to expand the links into definitions so that the content is 'complete' on one page.

Linking to other content isn't always necessary and should not be routine anyway - making a [[pot]] of [[tea]] by [[boiling]] the [[kettle]] and adding [[teabags]] and providing [[milk]] and [[sugar]]  is a well-enough understood process (at least in the UK!) so's not to need the definitions at all.

Linking is (IME) a Good Thing in small,  carefully selected doses.

[James Longley 90]

20 minutes ago, gazumped said:

It's a point of view,  but like any process backlinking isn't a bad thing provided you use it correctly.  IMHO it's wasteful to keep on describing devices or processes each time they're mentioned,  so linking to a [[continuum transfunctioner]] when you mention it in context is useful to ensure that every reader of that entry is on exactly the same page as to the definition of the device.  Likewise should a practice ever change to use a different device, it's easy to link to that instead.

For internal use,  the linked text could be acceptable - a quick lookup and return to the narrative enables readers to understand exactly what is intended here.

For external use or training,  it would be better to expand the links into definitions so that the content is 'complete' on one page.

Linking to other content isn't always necessary and should not be routine anyway - making a [[pot]] of [[tea]] by [[boiling]] the [[kettle]] and adding [[teabags]] and providing [[milk]] and [[sugar]]  is a well-enough understood process (at least in the UK!) so's not to need the definitions at all.

Linking is (IME) a Good Thing in small,  carefully selected doses.

Good points and agree that if you keep hard edges on how you use things and [[don't]] make [[too]] many [[cups]] of [[tea]], the utilitarian elements of backlinking can be handy. I have also found that the ability to link things easily does lead to more flow in writing, I just wasn't sufficiently sold to move all of my knowledge management into another location or split my work into two separate locations. For a tool like Roam or Obsidian to have maximum effect it would need to be the place where you capture your knowledge and that's no the route I'm wanting to take. 

I do wonder if EN will implement backlinks in one way or another. I get the sense from the features that have been implemented so far that they're moving more towards 'blocks' in a similar way to Notion, in which case I imagine blocks can have individual IDs. We shall see. 

[DTLow 5,736]

2 hours ago, James | Headquarters said:

I get the sense from the features that have been implemented so far that they're moving more towards 'blocks'

I'm still seeing a note centric product

Where do you see 'blocks'?

[James Longley 90]

1 hour ago, DTLow said:

I'm still seeing a note centric product

Where do you see blocks?

Here's what I mean by 'block' https://share.getcloudapp.com/E0uYRgO5

In case you're not familiar with Roam and how it works, this will give you a better idea of how blocks are implemented there: https://share.getcloudapp.com/jkuLOXgg

[PinkElephant 8,077]

EN since „ever“ had a unique denominator for each note. This is nothing new, it was the backbone of sharing notes ever since. You can treat a note as an information block, just another name for the same thing.

Linking as well is nothing new to EN. The difference is that (as I understand it) Roam creates a backlink with each link, so you can explore the network in all directions. I think this would be a nice idea for EN as well - let us wait what will happen.

[James Longley 90]

32 minutes ago, PinkElephant said:

EN since „ever“ had a unique denominator for each note. This is nothing new, it was the backbone of sharing notes ever since. You can treat a note as an information block, just another name for the same thing.

Linking as well is nothing new to EN. The difference is that (as I understand it) Roam creates a backlink with each link, so you can explore the network in all directions. I think this would be a nice idea for EN as well - let us wait what will happen.

Agreed, there is a way to look at it with note as unit (and I use internal links extensively). Where Roam's implementation differs - and where the major difference would be - is treating the individual elements (e.g. bullets or even tasks) as unique entities. 

I'm not sure how I would feel about backlinks being implemented - we'll have to see where it goes. 

[PinkElephant 8,077]

In EN the note is the entity: It has an identifier, it must be in one (and only one) notebook, it is tagged, it has a geolocation, a created and a last-changed date, it can be shared, moved, merged (in which case it ends as an entity), can carry a reminder date etc.

Maybe the concept is less flexible than others, but at the same time it is simple and transparent.