> [!infobox] <s class="aside-in"><em>mentioned in 4 evergreens</em></s> #### [[How do we ensure our note systems scale correctly]] - part of:: [[A totally integrated machine should be infinitely scalable]] How do we test this theory? How do we define [[scalability]]? > ![[10_Sources/articles - Understanding Hierarchy by Translating Folgezettel and Structure Zettel • Zettelkasten Method#^273534378]] Folgezettel here refers to the ID system [[Niklas Luhmann]] used to place notes within his [[Zettelkasten]]. Exactly where the note was placed wasn't entirely important, rather that Luhmann had understanding of where larger topics were, and could enter at those places. This removes need to perfectly remember where a note is, you just need to have a general idea and then follow the links. However, Folgezettel was an unchanging hierarchy that allowed for topics to be in certain places. This reinforces [[Decimal based organization systems provide the easiest access to common notes]], but mostly we work with no [[hierarchy]], choosing instead that [[Note titles should be abstractions of the note content]], rather than unique identifiers. ^[ #TO/EXPLORE/RESEARCH why much of the early [[Zettelkasten]] used time instead a hierarchy for UUIDs] ##### Other methods of finding notes > ![[10_Sources/articles - Understanding Hierarchy by Translating Folgezettel and Structure Zettel • Zettelkasten Method#^273534551]] > ![[10_Sources/articles - Understanding Hierarchy by Translating Folgezettel and Structure Zettel • Zettelkasten Method#^273535043]] This is a good method of generating [[understanding]], but I'm not sure if it is sustainable method of locating notes. That said I don't think that the Folgezettel was sustainable either. I suspect that there were times that Luhmann failed to locate or could have benefited from a certain note, but because that note was placed in an unrelated area it wasn't available. In theory [[organizational notes]] don't need to hold every note, but just enough entry points to find the thoughts that aren't directly linked. [[Densely linked webs of thought provide intuitive access to knowledge]]. I believe that this is the solution Luhmann generally used, as he did not have structure notes, but did have hubs that lead him to certain areas where he could start following links. The question is how do we improve on Luhmann? Answers: - [[Defined relationships are superior to contextual backlinks]] could approximate Folgezettel in a sustainable intuitive way - [[AI]] assistants for resurfacing - [[spaced repetition]], but what are the limits of what we can hold even in our long term memory? - [[Note titles should be abstractions of the note content]] certainly helps, but even at 1300 notes I am running into memory issues (mostly with word differences in titles, and counterpoint headings) ### <hr class="footnote"/> **Status**:: #EVER/SAPLING *edited 7:35 AM - July 08, 2022* **Topics**:: [[My TIM]], [[second brain]], [[knowledge management]]