Does Obsidian take into account the strength of links between two documents , while in graph mode?

Does obsidian’s graph view take into account , the number of times two documents have been linked to each other ?

If it does , how does it display this strength ?

Has anyone used this feature in their workflow ? AKA - is it useful ? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Great question! As far as I know it does not. But it should, or at least this should be an option. There are multiple threads in their forums about it, but this is one of my favorites because of the idea of using user-configurable metrics to drive line thickness and node size. It’s closed as a duplicate, but interestingly was posted only a few days ago, so it’s definitely on people’s minds:

1 Like

This is a great find . Thanks man ! Will definitely keep coming back to this often .

Anyways , sad that Obsidian doesn’t have these features already . Although I am fairly confident that they would implement some (or many) of them , soon enough , given their dev speed.

1 Like

I have noticed that the ‘link strength’ slider on the graph isn’t 100% linear across all notes if you leave the graph in its startup state. From what I can see, notes with multiple links and reciprocal links that aren’t themselves linked will often end up right next to each other on the graph when I first load it up. I’ll test it out but it’s not exactly a feature if you can’t manipulate it yourself :smiley:

I’m always astounded by how fast new features are added to Obsidian. It makes me wonder if there’s more to their “not going open-source” than just not having time to coordinate contributors. That extra time might turn out to be more significant than I first thought.

2 Likes

Indeed! I’m not sure how their plugin architecture works, but presumably it has access to the graph view, and if that’s the case it could easily come as a plugin too.

Interesting thought! Can you elaborate?

Sure. People have been pressuring the devs to go Open Source for a while, but the response back has been that it would take more time organising the community than it does to just develop Obsidian’s abilities quickly themselves. I was fairly sympathetic to that point of view at first, but then when I spent a week trying to find a screen-capture app a quarter as good as ShareX for Linux, I found a long trail of dead Open Source projects that people had just abandoned because it’s not critical enough software for people to help with and there’s no market for support to keep the lights running.

So for things like OpenSSH and Jellyfin where it’s either critical or easy to monetise, I can absolutely see the point of going Open Source, but past KG who thought everything could be Open Source has been sidelined — it’s a more complicated business decision than I’d originally thought. Obsidian’s response to pressure to go Open Source was what clued me on to that.

1 Like

Oh yeah, totally agree on that. I’ve long been skeptical of the “open source everything!” movement. But it does make me wonder about incentives to participate. Theoretically money is mostly out of the equation. So is the incentive on popular projects due to visibility (i.e. a dev might be more visible in the community of a larger project), a sense of belonging/community, or simply that more people need those things, and therefore more devs (who also need those things) end up getting involved (partly) to serve their own need?

I’m very interested in incentive structures in general, economically and politically (which is of course outside the context of this thread :smile:), but since we don’t have any utopian no-money societies to analyze, open source makes an interesting example (admittedly existing, as it does, inside of capitalist structures, which undoubtedly influence it from top to bottom).

2 Likes

Appropriately enough, you’re having this conversation with an economist who’s studying and currently working on an open-source project in AI with a dream of one day helping to bring on post-scarcity after a stint in the most top-to-bottom news media empire in the capitalist structure.

So, yeah, not in context for this conversation maybe, but when when I have some time, definitely the right interpersonal context :smiley:

2 Likes

Excellent! I had some sense that might be the case. Excited to pick up the subject again some time, where and when it’s appropriate.

can I make the case for economics being related enough to productivity to have a sub-category or tag here? :smile:

2 Likes

I’d vote for a sticky or a sub-catagory:

Productivity and Economics: Why are you productive?

Dibs making that a thread if it’s not already.

2 Likes

The post has been made, as we have foreseen it.

2 Likes