> > In order to make the documentation clear and accurate, I've actually given > this phenomenon a name: not all links are "observable".
Yes, there can be links to what is listed as an orphan. The criterion is that an orphan is one that does not have any hard-wired link-references. Perhaps orphans are a bit of an outdated concept with all the listing capabilities of these days which wikis of some distant past might not have had. Although, just being listed somewhere does not (necessarily) make for well integrated content... tied-in with all the other knowledge bits. Perhaps, rather than orphans, what would really be interesting is a tab that showed the number of backlinks for all tiddlers. Then you could see which tiddlers are heavily referenced and not only those that are not referenced at all. So, on that "backlinks" list, orphans would be but one type of entry. Likewise, an equivalent "references" tab might be interesting. Perhaps it's time to say good bye to a dedicated "orphans" tab which at best yields confusion or users never bothering to take a look. Anyhow, how to sort tiddlers by number of references, backlinks, tags?!? We may want a suffix to the sort filter, e.g.... [sort:count[tags]] [sort:count[tagging]] [sort:count[references]] [sort:count[backlinks]] Best wishes, Tobias. -- 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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
