Logseq is a hidden gem in the Tools for Thought space. In this article we explore what is Logseq, its strengths and how you can get started with Logseq.
I am diving in, and have journals, assets and pages indexed from Logseq into Devonthink3 (as I have a similar setup for Obsidian) and definitely find Logseq more compatible with my outlining habits acquired over the years. I have added a few plugins (agenda, tabs, tags, bullet threading) and these add just enough extra to make me feel like I can do what needs to be done here. I doubt I would have made this effort without the timely encouragement from TFTHacker's post.
Comparing Logseq and Obsidian to Notion, things I miss:
Ease of Table use - Logseq has Luckysheet (great, but I don't know how to integrate it). Obsidian has MD table editors and I saw a plugin for Notion-like tables, but hadn't used it for now.
Columns for text - In Logseq I could only do this by kanbans. In Obsidian a plugin made it a "view" feature, not really 2 separate text columns as in Notion.
Both are very into queries for requesting and visualizing data, I suppose, and I'm still starting to learn it. I got kinda lost with the abundance of Obsidian's plugins. This gave Logseq an easier learning curve for me. But Obsidian sure appears to have more features, a bigger community and growth.
The reason I'm using Logseq is its built-in PDF handling, with its linked annotations and reading. Obsidian has an Annotation plugin which I couldn't use, and its other option for annotation is a paid feature in a plugin.
Of course I may be missing a lot. But so far so good, compared to when I didn't use any of them.
Hi Fred, my fellow TfT explorer. I know where you are coming from. Logseq is a great tool and while it has many advanced features, you will likely feel right at home in it. Because it has so many good features baked in, there is a lot less need for plugins or css customization. I used it mostly barebones the whole time. I'd recommend an experiment: take notes in it for a few days, but really take notes. That way you force yourself to get a feel for it.
Outliner though is excellent in my opinion. So I think you will enjoy it.
The only part I found complicated was advanced queries, but in the end I found that I found I coul find what I was looking for in the community and didn't have to invest any time learning them. Plus Logseq is actively working on a query builder, so this problem will go away.
HiYa Roam/TfT Hacker! You post here has found me at a weak (but maybe teachable) moment.
As a recent user of Roam (11/2020) and Obsidian (3/22) and Tana (10/22) I am missing the frictionless use of a hierarchical outliner, which, like you, is the way I think--starting in 1993 with EccoPro. Then Workflowy, Dynalist....
I am not a coder and typically wait for the Creators to do their work, and benefit parasitically from their efforts--like Roam42 for instance.
My question is: do you think such a low-tech person can make Logseq a tool that does not make that user stumble like Obsidian does (even with all the outlining plugins in place)?
I'm not sure I would want to import from Obsidian into Logseq (if possible) since I have that indexed in Devonthink already and would just leave that as the ultimate repository, hopefully, also for Logseq files to be indexed by DT3.
These questions are rhetorical, just ruminating on the basis of this post at just the time I find my grip on old tools weakening a bit.
I am diving in, and have journals, assets and pages indexed from Logseq into Devonthink3 (as I have a similar setup for Obsidian) and definitely find Logseq more compatible with my outlining habits acquired over the years. I have added a few plugins (agenda, tabs, tags, bullet threading) and these add just enough extra to make me feel like I can do what needs to be done here. I doubt I would have made this effort without the timely encouragement from TFTHacker's post.
Comparing Logseq and Obsidian to Notion, things I miss:
Ease of Table use - Logseq has Luckysheet (great, but I don't know how to integrate it). Obsidian has MD table editors and I saw a plugin for Notion-like tables, but hadn't used it for now.
Columns for text - In Logseq I could only do this by kanbans. In Obsidian a plugin made it a "view" feature, not really 2 separate text columns as in Notion.
Both are very into queries for requesting and visualizing data, I suppose, and I'm still starting to learn it. I got kinda lost with the abundance of Obsidian's plugins. This gave Logseq an easier learning curve for me. But Obsidian sure appears to have more features, a bigger community and growth.
The reason I'm using Logseq is its built-in PDF handling, with its linked annotations and reading. Obsidian has an Annotation plugin which I couldn't use, and its other option for annotation is a paid feature in a plugin.
Of course I may be missing a lot. But so far so good, compared to when I didn't use any of them.
Added this page to my tools-repo => https://tools-repo.super.site/tools/logseq
& subscribed to your newsletter.
Hi Fred, my fellow TfT explorer. I know where you are coming from. Logseq is a great tool and while it has many advanced features, you will likely feel right at home in it. Because it has so many good features baked in, there is a lot less need for plugins or css customization. I used it mostly barebones the whole time. I'd recommend an experiment: take notes in it for a few days, but really take notes. That way you force yourself to get a feel for it.
Outliner though is excellent in my opinion. So I think you will enjoy it.
The only part I found complicated was advanced queries, but in the end I found that I found I coul find what I was looking for in the community and didn't have to invest any time learning them. Plus Logseq is actively working on a query builder, so this problem will go away.
HiYa Roam/TfT Hacker! You post here has found me at a weak (but maybe teachable) moment.
As a recent user of Roam (11/2020) and Obsidian (3/22) and Tana (10/22) I am missing the frictionless use of a hierarchical outliner, which, like you, is the way I think--starting in 1993 with EccoPro. Then Workflowy, Dynalist....
I am not a coder and typically wait for the Creators to do their work, and benefit parasitically from their efforts--like Roam42 for instance.
My question is: do you think such a low-tech person can make Logseq a tool that does not make that user stumble like Obsidian does (even with all the outlining plugins in place)?
I'm not sure I would want to import from Obsidian into Logseq (if possible) since I have that indexed in Devonthink already and would just leave that as the ultimate repository, hopefully, also for Logseq files to be indexed by DT3.
These questions are rhetorical, just ruminating on the basis of this post at just the time I find my grip on old tools weakening a bit.
I do appreciate your insights. -- Fred