*Springer*, that's really cool, I don't think I've ever seen that particular layout before! I do a similar thing to your “tldr” in my Zettelkasten, extending the “description” field to non-system tiddlers and displaying it at the top next to the gem icon if present:
[image: ksnip_20210812-125810.png] *TT*, I'm puzzled where you got the idea that I think book indexes were/are a poor tool, or lacking in either authorial effort or utility. Are you able to point to location(s) in the post which are “inaccurate” or give you that impression? If so, I would like to correct it, as that is the exact opposite of what I think. I've been compiling and using keyword indexes almost daily myself for about twelve years (almost half my life), and they are a powerful tool – not to mention thesauruses, concordances, encyclopedias, etc., as you point out. I wrote a guide on using indexes for your notes <https://thetechnicalgeekery.com/2013/06/the-complete-guide-to-indexing-your-paper-notes/> back in 2013. It's exactly because they're so good (and, I think, neglected nowadays) that I'm interested in expanding them. And I think many of us today are too “computer exceptionalist”. Good ideas are mostly independent of medium, it's just that sometimes they're really hard, or a comparatively bad intuitive fit, in one medium, so they don't make a lot of sense there. Or to put it another way, a system like what I'm proposing would be totally doable even on paper...just *way* more time-consuming to create and maintain. On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > Soren Bjornstad wrote: > >> Some of you all might be interested in this new post on my blog: >> >> >> https://controlaltbackspace.org/notes/better-indexes-through-semantic-modeling/ > > > It was well worth reading! > > *THE GOOD* > > Great example of logical working through to a satisfactory outcome. > > I complimented you before that your use of *visual illustrations* helps > earth the discussion really well! > I think they definitely help folk who are not so versed in the conceptual > matrix you lay out. > > *THE BAD* > > TBH your comments about the Old Media of Books are simply inaccurate. > > The Book has had (when required) very *good *indexing where authors chose > to do it. > Think about the richness of the indices of Roget's Thesaurus. > Think about all those Biblical things that Dave Gifford and several > million other Christians sweat over. > Their CONCORDANCES has been a venerable partner in print works for a very > long time. > > *THE UGLY* > > Nothing. Your basic thing is additive. > > > The Good the Bad & The Ugly <https://youtu.be/aJCSNIl2Pls?t=164> > > Best wishes > TT > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/3a15ef51-dafb-49f5-ad0f-9f9ec743f128n%40googlegroups.com.
