Add another way (@) to reference pages

[night sinew]

In old Logseq, you can reference pages with #Page or [[Page]]. They both link to the same thing, but they were used slightly differently. Usually you used [[]] when the reference naturally fit within a sentence and # when it didn't. Example:

• Rust [[Programming]] tips...
• Python interpreter written in Rust... #Programming

In the DB version we lost one of the ways, so I propose adding @Page as another way to refer to pages which will replace the old #Page

[jolly linden]

My vote is for tag to stay a tag, keep the (fantastic) flexibility of both # and [[]] for tags/references and a new prefix @ for objects (tags that have properties).

[night sinew]

Just to add this is especially useful when you hide the brackets. The references outside the sentences look odd without the #

[fading geyser]

@ will be used to mention users in collaboration. Refer to https://discord.com/channels/725182569297215569/1386683986360795266

[jolly linden]

Ok, @ may be taken but I‘ve seen various ideas ( double ##, $, convert tag to object) around.
I create tags all the time, „objects types“ just a few.
Keeping the md version simplicity for basic categorization/tagging would be great.

[fiery violet]

It is also a problem with importing text from other platforms, since tags in most other platforms are used the way [[ ]] are used in Logseq, not as NewTags.

I also think it would help new users better understand that NewTags (which need a better name) are not the same thing as tags, so it would help with onboarding and shaping user expectations.

[jolly linden]

The fact that it’s still called „NewTags“ tells me that the feature is not really conceptually clear, especially in relation to „oldtags“ 🏷️

Browse a Tana community, people are complaining about the learning curve (mostly because of supertags).

Keep tags tags, introduce a separate kind of „object/class“ for the power users.

[heavy pagoda]

I'll also find this useful for importing my kindle notes, where I would simply put @concept during reading annotations to later then have it linked when copied into ls. This worked with the # but now that's not that viable anymore and brackets on German keyboards on kindle are a little complicated.

[heavy pagoda]

I dont think, they will pivot on this and I think the language and the concept are fine. RemNote has been doing this for years, Tana does it. The only logical problem in logseq db is, that there are no OldTags anymore, but then any Page can work as Tag, so once they figured out the UX, its fine. It works quite well already tbh - I don't know of any other tool that has this kind of quickly applied connections or categories. Do you?

[jolly linden]

no, I haven’t.
„NewTags“ is just a terrible name, it tells you nothing except it’s different from „old tags“ (that users starting with Logseq DB don’t even know). It’s also not what people expect of tags. That‘s wikilinks now. It feels like a mess.

Sorry for the rant, but I think this product and its (new) features desperately need an UX designer with real decision making power who can figure out how to communicate and name these features.

[heavy pagoda]

I see your point and I hope, users will quickly learn their functionality and ignore the name. In the app itself, they are called Tags.

[fiery violet]

I'm the only one who calls it "NewTags" the team just calls it "tags" and I've found this very confusing for new users so started calling it NewTags in order to make the difference clearer. There is already a discussion over naming so any further discussion of that should go there, to keep this thread clean for discussing symbols. Sorry I brought it up:

https://discord.com/channels/725182569297215569/1296616816172335154

[night sinew]

Another suggestion is to keep the # for old tags and add ~Type for new tags (which imo should be called Types)

[frozen saffron]

Kind like this idea.
Definitely think “Types” makes most sense of all the terms I’ve seen. Or “objects”

ClickUp has a similar concept - they’re called “Task Types” but the “Task” part really isn’t relevant or needed since the type can be not-a-task.

[heavy pagoda]

I would be fine with supertags or new tags, because they probably won't switch out the # symbol and user will be confused if # is not a Tag. And types sounds cool, but also rigid, reminds me of capacities, where one Note only can have one object type.

[fading geyser]

We just need to not call it newTag and stick to Tag . Once I tested DB and adopted that term, everything clicked and made sense. And yes, the symbol is also set and I don’t think there a better symbol for tag than `#’.

Oh, before Tag, it was type, during initial development phase

[heavy pagoda]

That's what is was for me as well, but I also prepared by RemNote.

Do we know, where this concept of tags carrying types originated?

[fading geyser]

mostly Tana because they have shown how it could be done with outlining.

[heavy pagoda]

I mean the concept in general, not where logseq devs got I from. Tana is years younger than remnote

[eternal mist]

If "@" is eventually used to refer to collaborators, I hope developers can add a switch button to this function, because my entire note has been marked with @for keywords. Or allow users to use any other special characters instead.