> [!infobox] <s class="aside-in"><em>mentioned in 1 topic, 3 evergreens</em></s> #### [[Only categorize as much as your data requires]] part of:: [[Prioritize understanding over organization or categorization]] It can be tempting to try to categorize all the [[knowledge]] that you are gathering in your [[second brain]], but over-categorization can lead to wasting time on categorizations that in the end will be inaccurate. Over time, you can start to see what the most important differences between notes are and how that changes how you use them. Early on, you likely won't need to classify [[information]], ^[ #TO/EXPLORE/RESEARCH Cutter classification reflects this] but it can be useful to classify metadata. Much of the literature around popular [[knowledge management|knowledge management systems]] like [[Zettelkasten]] revolves around different "types" of notes. Unfortunately, people often get too stuck up on this. ^[Especially because the names used are often horrible and just make it harder to understand. This is an example of [[Names matter because they effect people's perception and understanding]]] Depending on what your purposes and style of [[learning]] is, you are going to view the separations between notes differently. Using myself as an example, I have three main classifications with rough ideas of what the differences are: - [[source notes]], what other people know ^[similar to reference notes, fleeting notes - in practice these are notes from classes and imported highlights] - [[topic notes]], what I know about what other people know ^[similar to MOCs, structure notes, and wikipedia articles] - [[evergreen notes]], what I understand ^[almost exactly the same as [[Andy Matuschak's Evergreen Notes]], but also the least well-defined and most used notes] %% #TO/TEND/DEOBFUSCATE with [[Your notes should be avenues for learning#^8c7851]] %% These classifications have been somewhat useful, but overtime the differences become more blurred rather than more clear. However, the differences that are clear (and the reason I continue to use the classifications) are in the metadata. Each type has different [[Dataview]] fields, different notes structures, ^[[[Note structures should help curate knowledge]]] and different (flexible) requirements on how to cite my sources. %% #TO/TEND/MULCH %% At first, I used these classifications to denote how much work I put into them, but over time I have realized that for every note to provide value, I need to put work into every note. See [[Use Obsidian tags as temporal classifiers# Classifications group notes with similar metadata]] for more on how I classify notes ### <hr class="footnote"/> **Status**:: #EVER/GREEN *edited January 25, 2022* **Topics**:: [[categorization]], [[knowledge management]], [[understanding]]