| This comment is a slightly tangential shameless plug, but I just want to point out that I loved the structure of this essay. There were a lot of great little ideas that I don't think would have seen the light of day in a more traditional sort of blog post. > All the points I wanted to cover seem hyperlinked in a sprawling loose tangle. This could easily have been several standalone posts. I've been stuck on how to structure it. > This piece is long, but if you get bored in any one section, you can just scroll on the next one; they're separated by horizontal rules for easy visual scanning. You can also read them out of order. There are lots of cross-references, though, so if you skip some of the segments, others may not make complete sense. However, it’s ultimately not a big deal. I've long wondered how many essays don't get published because the author struggles to generate a "through line." Sometimes organizing ideas is harder than coming up with them. This is certainly a problem I struggle with. I've been working on software[1] that encourages you to publish ambitious online media even if it's a bit disjointed. Currently, only me and my friends and family are using it because it is very rough around the edges, but it is good enough that I personally use it every single day. If this sounds interesting to any HN comment readers I'd love to give you a beta code or a live demo to hear your thoughts. Send me an email at jon@edifice.pub [1] https://edifice.pub |
This is pretty interesting as it is a problem I struggle with too.
Your landing page there reminds me of something else I’m a fan of, e.g. Building a Second Brain through notes and web clips as discussed here: https://tanners.blog/diy-second-brain/
But these are more focused solely on the background processes of organizing information.
I’m curious about how your system would encourage publishing, “even if it’s a bit disjointed”, as that seems kind of the logical next step. (And definitely a challenge for me too!)