A wealth of fabulous advice - thank you so much! I’m a well-indexed bullet journallist but with new-found Zettelkasten leanings - so this post is a gem!

Expand full comment

Thank you! I hope it helps you in your Zettelkasten exploration. In my opinion adding a good index to anything is the charm.

Expand full comment

Many of the specifics you address aren't well covered in much of the literature, and as a result often cause a lot of confusion.

The use of the / or the . in these numbers is broadly only to improve readability.

One of the major benefits of Luhmann's particular numbering method was specifically to cut way back on the overcrowding of his index in comparison with other commonplacing book indexing schemes (like that of John Locke in particular). If you look at Luhmann's index it will usually only have a 1-3 entries for each word as related material will be found in neighboring cards within a particular branch.

In point 1, it would appear that your issue is mentally equating the "top level" number with a category/topic in the first place. It's just an idea and the number is a location. Start by separating the two. You manage to do this in your own dating system by creating an abstract number, but you're simultaneously requiring yourself (or a computer) to build up a date-based number which requires additional, unnecessary work. Your system is equivalent to all the others if you cut off the date-based root.

Perhaps the following two articles may be of some help in thinking through what you're doing:

- On The Interdisciplinarity of Zettelkasten: Card Numbering, Topical Headings, and Indices https://boffosocko.com/2023/01/19/on-the-interdisciplinarity-of-zettelkasten-card-numbering-topical-headings-and-indices/

- Thoughts on Zettelkasten numbering systems https://boffosocko.com/2022/10/27/thoughts-on-zettelkasten-numbering-systems/

Of course at the end of the day, it's the system that works for you and the way you think that works best, so if none of it makes sense, then definitely use your own method.

Expand full comment