Note: OGM Forum is no longer active. This is a static snapshot as of February 2022. You can browse the site to see posts, but the functional features of the site will not work. You can search or download a zip archive of the files from the site at github/OpenGlobalMind/

Logseq et seq.

BTW, Joe, I will be angry with you (for like 200 milliseconds) if I end up falling in love with Logseq so soon after falling in love with Stroll. After being angry, though, I would be very thankful. (And I would have to try Org-mode again!)

Another piece of the puzzle for Bill’s experience.

Checking my inbox (after playing with Logseq and the repo), I saw that I got an email notification from Github, “Integration Installation Request / @band requests you to install Logseq for OpenGlobalMind.”

I’m one of several “Owners” of the org; Bill is a “Member”. (A separate discussion could be had about who should be “Owner” and “Member”; I advocate everyone being “Owner”, but I won’t make that change unilaterally.)

So anyway, when I tried Logseq and the repo, It Just Worked, because I’m an Owner. When Bill tried it, it stopped, waiting for an Owner to approve the installation request.

I think my using it installed it for everybody. The request was also still pending (? github bug ?), so I approved that, too.

Works for me after going Avitar → All repos → Add another repo. (, main)

Tags are spelled like :shortcodes: :sunny:

D’oh, I could not find “Add another repo” to play with my own. Thank you!

:+1: #winning

I’ll pick this up tomorrow. Had a pleasant afternoon in puppy training lessons and enjoying some wonderful Central Texas weather.

I am looking forward to trying to co-author or -mangle a collection of paragraphs.

I did pick this up this morning and as Joe mentioned, I clobbered something. Never a dull day in the software lab. :grimacing:

Wow. Have any of you looked at what shows up in a web-browser at this url (once you have associated your github id and logseq and the OpenGlobalMind/commentsPlus repository):

The pages render as filled with repeating entries of the same text. I have not counted the number of repeats, but it is many.

To paraphrase the internet these days: “What is happening?”

Imma gonna look at the files in github directly, but this seems to be a real mess. Of course it could just be my browser.

woo hoo. we are having fun now.

In my case the content looks pretty innocuous:

Thursday morning, 19 November.
[Nit question: how did you and pete create the pages joe and pete?]

Joe, I see what you see on one of my computers.

On the other one, however, I see this:

Can we move the logsec and any other discussions about specific repositories to their own forum thread so others can find this thread and understand how to sign up more easily?

yes we can do that. one topic per repo? or one topic about, say, ‘specific information repository practice’?


Of course we can! That said, I’m going to take add a further distraction and say: Discourse would be quite nice if it was a bit more obvious how to move threads around. Shouldn’t the whole thread on Logseq (and this comment) be easily transplantable into a new thread? Maybe that feature exists for admins…? But not as far as I can see for normal users.

That ability seems to be available to admins. But I have not tried to do it. Yet.

Maybe put all these topics under “Tools”?

There may be a bit of churn before certain Topic names settle down.

FYI, I moved the Logseq stuff out of the GitHub topic to this shiny new Logseq topic.

Thanks Bentley for the nudge.

Joe, Bill, splitting/moving topics is admin (and moderator, I hope)-specific, and will soon be handled by our newly-forming Moderation Team.

Joe, let us know if you’d like to be on the Moderation Team! :slight_smile:

1 Like

I would not recommend that, simply because the permissions are too high, which leaves the door open to destructive/disgruntled people to do damage. I’m not sure how hard that’d be to undo, but it’s best not to make the temptation available.

Today I noticed that OGM logseq account seems to contain a new journal page for every day, starting on Nov 17, 2020. The journal pages from Nov 21 - Nov 24 only contain a link to themselves; otherwise they are empty.

Does logseq just generate a daily journal page on its own? Is it “spooky action from a server?” Or as people now say on social media “What. Is. Happening?”

1 Like

@anderbill Logseq seems to add a journal entry for each day someone visits the site.

That said, it seems to me our experiment with Logseq was set aside before we got anywhere near a “critical mass” of users to be having daily updates!

Do we need to escalate the issue to a “meta-level”?

(Cf. Meta-discussions for context.)

What this might mean is that instead of trying to get everyone to use Logseq, we instead try to create some software that pulls together data from various “second brain” apps? Granted, that’s a bit more of a technical project, but in principle it would allow people to use whatever tools they are most comfortable with (as long as there’s an open data export that they are willing to share).

I’m a bit concerned that it’s relatively easy to make diagrams like the one from @saiiam at What is OGM? (suggested post)
and somewhat harder to operationalise them!

Indeed, we have been talking about the (more limited) technological coordination issue in connection with multiple different instances of Org Roam ( +… doing it across different platforms wouldn’t be so different.

1 Like

All of these technologies and approaches seem to me to be solutions. What specific problem is being solved? And whose problem is it? Maybe this is the meta-level discussion??

I agree that diagrams like the one from @saiiam you link to are great for humans as both an outline of a set of ideas, and a record of an activity. Transferring this diagram to a software-based representation is a lot of work. Why would we want to do that?

Well, I can do some work to turn the diagram into a “mind map” of sorts, then we’ll see how it works at a 1-person level… but in brief if we were going to collaborate on a data collection “What we know to be true” (or something approximating that)… I think we’d also want some shared representations. Now, it could be that we each have different places where we keep notes (e.g., @lovolution uses mind mapping software, I might use Org Roam, someone else might use strictly paper-based notes, etc.) and that could be fine, with the shared representations just being forum posts and other communication/coordination messages. That’s the current state of the art, so clearly it’s “OK”.

The question of what else we could be empowered to do if we had shared representations that had some lightweight semantics… I think we only have to look at Wikipedia to know that “there’s a there there.” We’ve talked a lot, collectively, about “Where does OGM want to go?” — but maybe less about “How are we going to get there?”

Tools are only one part of this “how”; processes are also important! Perhaps we’re still at the level of “individual examples” rather than collective practices?


I was thinking that turning that diagram into a mind-map is also not too much work.
Hmmm … maybe we should try to encode it into a mind-map exchange format such as OPML? I am a mind-map fan, so I like that idea. If we had an OPML representation, what can we import that into? Is there a better exchange format; MindNode exports to Markdown.)

I think we are in the many-different workrooms here in OGM. But I am open to trying some experiments. (I know quests are encouraged here, but experiments might be useful activities - especially if the outcome is documented, even if it is a train-wreck.)