Yes, I know this possibility. It is not very practical. If we could save two different size configuration with a toggle key. This could improve drastically usability.
I updated to the new version of the plugin and sometime, randomly,the graph refresh without any action from me. I was looking at some link between notes and boum, all is refreshed and everything moves. I use the most recent version of Joplin (2.4.9) and the most recent version of the plugin. I'm on Windows 10.
Ah, It may be because the graph redraws when syncing finishes. I’ll try to address that tomorrow. Previously it only redrew the graph if the sync changed the data
Hey, I just published a release (v1.1.1) that should fix the frequent redraw issue. Let me know if you still have issues after that update is available in Joplin
This is surely one of the best plugins, thank you @treymo !
Two ideas to improve overview in case of multiple connections:
- Show arrows in the graph / make it directed
- Assign different colors to edges depending on their distance to selected node
(1) will let you know, which node contains the link. For (2), it would be cool, if separate colors can be chosen for edges of direct neighbor node (distance 1), edges with distance 2, and so on.
It seems to me that there is not necessarily a need at this point because the links generated are always A --» B. The B --» A links are actually backlinks that are generated elsewhere by another plugin. So I use both in parallel.
This is a good idea but it seems to me that if you go beyond 3 levels it will quickly become unreadable. A cluster display beyond 3 levels would be ideal but surely complicated to implement.
On all the functionalities related to the graph there are plenty of good ideas to recover from obsidian.
I'm hoping to add a UI right on the graph panel that lets people customize the display a lot more, I'll keep these options in mind for that.
About the different colors for different distances: My current thinking is that it would be best to modify the graph layout so the more closely connected items are actually closer instead of across the graph. For example, I was thinking of a layout more like one of these: cytoscape-spread.js demo.
Right now, sometime related notes are further away from the current note than unconnected notes, which is no good.
Great! Can't wait.
It seems to me that it would be good indeed in a logic of exploration of the map.
That's why it seems to me that three levels of links are enough. I would be curious to know how links with more than three levels are used
Yes, up to three levels would be perfectly fine (first level already has bold white)
Yeah, also noticed that. With many notes, it has the potential to degenerate to spaghetti. If improvements are feasible with the current graph rendering algorithm, it would help greatly!
Totally agree. It's definitely possible, I just need to find the time.
After having thought about the idea to introduce arrows for directed graphs and @bepolymathe 's hint of Backlinks plugin:
Would it be a big effort to display backlinks in note graphs as well?
So given A -- links to --> B, when I select note B, the connection is still shown.
From my point of view it is not the same philosophy. A link is a voluntary connection to a complementary note or resource. A backlink is a reminder of the origin (the path) that led to the note/todo that we are consulting. In use, I think it's good that the two are separated. But maybe there are other uses I didn't think of.
I agree with @bepolymathe. I don't use the backlink plugin, but use the graph because I like to see the relationships between notes... I think it is good the 2 are separate.
Ah, I think backlinks are one of the most useful features a note-taking app can have. With them, when I'm writing a note, I can just link to it quickly (with
@@ from the other plugin) and be sure I will be able to notice the connection later, when I come to the note referenced.
Of course, if it's just a backlink, it might be best to have, dunno, a dotted/deemphasised line, or something...
Not having it is not a deal-breaker though.
I agree that backlinks are essential. Outbound links are there to answer the question "Which notes should I connect this note to?". The backlinks are there to answer the question "Which note are connected to this note?". We don't usually ask ourselves this question at the same time of a job and that's why I think these features are better separated. But maybe there are possibilities to display either one or the other (with masks that can be activated or not ) in a graphical way...
Thx you for your work, i will participate to this threads when i will know it a bit.
(and yes this message is mostly to avoid closing...since i want to participate soon :))
I found a super edge "bug" or "unexpected" effect.
For some reason, I have two folders with the same name that are subfolder of different folders. Let say both C1 et C2 have the same name, but different notes within:
A - C1
B - C2
I have notes in C1 et C2 that I don't want to see in the graph. But, when I write the name of C in the option to hide the notes (Notebooks names to filter), only the notes of C1 dissapear, but I can see the notes of C2 in the graph. When I delete C1 and all it's note, the notes of C2 then don't appear in the graph.
Is it possible to make the "Notebooks names to filter" filter all the notes of folders with the same name?
It's absolutely not a big problem and I easily work around that issue while usefuly using the plugin. But I was wondering if it was a easily solved issue or a super complex thing.
I can definitely do this. I actually knew this was a bug when I first wrote it but it was a bit of a rush job.
Thank you for the detailed example and report!
Awesome, and amazingly quick, response. Thanks a lot !
This plug-in is very good. I think it has great development prospects. I hope it can bring me more extensions in thinking.
In recent days, the newly launched plug-in is called “Graph”. It has many similarities with this plug-in. It is said that it can learn from this plug-in.
We can make a complementary reference against all improvements.