Obsidian is great; I was a happy user for a couple years. But I recently switched to Logseq and I think I’m already liking it more, and it’s because of something Logseq doesn’t do.
Obsidian lets you write a full markdown file, so step one is deciding how to write something down. Is it a nested list? Or a table? Or headings and subheadings with paragraphs?
In Logseq, everything is a nested list. This feels like a limitation, but I’ve been preferring it. The decision is made for you: you’re going to jot this information down as a list. So then you just start writing it.
People often tout that Logseq is open source, and while that is great, IMO there is also a design consideration that makes it better. Pretty much any kind of information you want to write down can be represented as a nested list. Doing it that way keeps everything simple, consistent, and more searchable. (Logseq’s built-in querying feature seems to be more powerful than Obsidian’s Dataview plugin, although I can’t say much about it since I haven’t really played with it yet.)
Both Obsidian and Logseq save (kinda) standard markdown files, so if you spend a lot of time in a plain text editor, you can still use that. You don’t lose anything by editing a file in a separate editor – they will both parse and re-index the file next time you view it in the respective app.
Logseq is the only note taking system that has clicked with me, by lowering the mental overhead at the time of adding notes. I just throw it in there without any considerations while still feeling like it’s not going to get lost. Later I may revisit the day’s journal and add tags or connect other information, move a block into its own page, etc.
In Logseq, everything is a nested list. This feels like a limitation, but I’ve been preferring it. The decision is made for you: you’re going to jot this information down as a list. So then you just start writing it.
Oh - this sounds interesting.
Whenever I needed to jot down any notes I’ve been finding myself just writing plain .txt files with bullet points, and trying tools like Obsidian or TiddlyWiki I always ended up being overwhelmed with the amount of stuff I could do (and with all the customization options) that I never got around to actually writing things down. I’m definitely gonna look into how Logseq works.
(Although I have to say, their website does look a bit “too hype-y” for my liking. IDK how to explain it, just a gut feeling. Still, at least it’s FOSS so it can’t be too bad)
The website also put me off, I only kept at it because my partner was already using it and it looked solid enough. I even asked “Are you sure this is the logseq? It looks so…idk Marketing?”
But so far I just seem to use it a lot, and the more I use it the more useful I find it, especially after learning how to add tags (didn’t seem particularly obvious in the docs), and after finally getting into the flow of using Syncthing.
In Logseq, everything is a nested list. This feels like a limitation, but I’ve been preferring it. The decision is made for you: you’re going to jot this information down as a list. So then you just start writing it.
I really appreciate you posting this. I’m a long-time Obsidian user, and an Evernote user before that, and I never “got” Logseq. I just couldn’t understand what people saw in an app that didn’t let you “write” anything. I’ve tried to start using Logseq so many times and just given up because the interface made no sense.
Thanks to your comment I finally get it! I prefer to be using something open-source, so I’m going to give Logseq another go, now that I finally understand it, and see how that approach feels.
my situation is very similar to yours; I was previously an obsidian user but then switched to logseq for everything. I really wonder why logseq website doesn’t hype up the fact that it’s an outliner, because imo that’s what sets it apart from similar programs. I didn’t even know what an outliner was until recently
CherryTree is way clunkier, IMO, and has too many irrelevant options that get in the way, particularly around formatting. Obsidian is just markdown, so you don’t have the option of spending 15 minutes trying to figure out why code blocks are showing up as dark text on light background even though you’re in dark mode, which was my last experience in CherryTree. Looking and cross referencing documents is also super easy; I’m not sure if CherryTree even does that.
Kinda surprised I had to scroll this far down to find logseq. I’ve started using it in university and it’s been a life saver. I love the idea that everything is in these nested blocks, so I can just hammer down notes about whatever super quick with no setup or thinking about it. I just plunk my laptop down, open it up and go to town.
Obsidian is great; I was a happy user for a couple years. But I recently switched to Logseq and I think I’m already liking it more, and it’s because of something Logseq doesn’t do.
Obsidian lets you write a full markdown file, so step one is deciding how to write something down. Is it a nested list? Or a table? Or headings and subheadings with paragraphs?
In Logseq, everything is a nested list. This feels like a limitation, but I’ve been preferring it. The decision is made for you: you’re going to jot this information down as a list. So then you just start writing it.
People often tout that Logseq is open source, and while that is great, IMO there is also a design consideration that makes it better. Pretty much any kind of information you want to write down can be represented as a nested list. Doing it that way keeps everything simple, consistent, and more searchable. (Logseq’s built-in querying feature seems to be more powerful than Obsidian’s Dataview plugin, although I can’t say much about it since I haven’t really played with it yet.)
Both Obsidian and Logseq save (kinda) standard markdown files, so if you spend a lot of time in a plain text editor, you can still use that. You don’t lose anything by editing a file in a separate editor – they will both parse and re-index the file next time you view it in the respective app.
Logseq is the only note taking system that has clicked with me, by lowering the mental overhead at the time of adding notes. I just throw it in there without any considerations while still feeling like it’s not going to get lost. Later I may revisit the day’s journal and add tags or connect other information, move a block into its own page, etc.
Oh - this sounds interesting.
Whenever I needed to jot down any notes I’ve been finding myself just writing plain .txt files with bullet points, and trying tools like Obsidian or TiddlyWiki I always ended up being overwhelmed with the amount of stuff I could do (and with all the customization options) that I never got around to actually writing things down. I’m definitely gonna look into how Logseq works.
(Although I have to say, their website does look a bit “too hype-y” for my liking. IDK how to explain it, just a gut feeling. Still, at least it’s FOSS so it can’t be too bad)
The website also put me off, I only kept at it because my partner was already using it and it looked solid enough. I even asked “Are you sure this is the logseq? It looks so…idk Marketing?”
But so far I just seem to use it a lot, and the more I use it the more useful I find it, especially after learning how to add tags (didn’t seem particularly obvious in the docs), and after finally getting into the flow of using Syncthing.
I really appreciate you posting this. I’m a long-time Obsidian user, and an Evernote user before that, and I never “got” Logseq. I just couldn’t understand what people saw in an app that didn’t let you “write” anything. I’ve tried to start using Logseq so many times and just given up because the interface made no sense.
Thanks to your comment I finally get it! I prefer to be using something open-source, so I’m going to give Logseq another go, now that I finally understand it, and see how that approach feels.
my situation is very similar to yours; I was previously an obsidian user but then switched to logseq for everything. I really wonder why logseq website doesn’t hype up the fact that it’s an outliner, because imo that’s what sets it apart from similar programs. I didn’t even know what an outliner was until recently
LogSeq also supports Org (which is what it was originally designed for), which is phenomenal for an Emacs user like me.
Do you know cherryTree and if yes, how it compares to the two?
I have not heard of cherrytree before, I’ll check it out.
CherryTree is way clunkier, IMO, and has too many irrelevant options that get in the way, particularly around formatting. Obsidian is just markdown, so you don’t have the option of spending 15 minutes trying to figure out why code blocks are showing up as dark text on light background even though you’re in dark mode, which was my last experience in CherryTree. Looking and cross referencing documents is also super easy; I’m not sure if CherryTree even does that.
Kinda surprised I had to scroll this far down to find logseq. I’ve started using it in university and it’s been a life saver. I love the idea that everything is in these nested blocks, so I can just hammer down notes about whatever super quick with no setup or thinking about it. I just plunk my laptop down, open it up and go to town.