I've long been contemplating the modern-day equivalents of the Llullian combinatorial arts and the relationship to Google's search engine is an interesting one.

I've always said that knowing the name of the thing you're searching for (especially in technical settings) will aid you immeasurably in finding it. For example, if you're searching for content management systems and don't know that as their name or even the name of an example, you're unlikely to be very successful.

It's true that each note taking application may be purpose fit for a particular use, but having a single store for all of your notes is incredibly important for future search and re-discovery. Keeping one's notes across a range of applications is disaster waiting to happen, at least until there is a bigger aggregate search function that can search across multiple platforms.

html <link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://www.nature.com/opensearch/opensearch.xml" title="nature.com" /> <link rel="search" type="application/sru+xml" href="http://www.nature.com/opensearch/request" title="nature.com" />

While we may have the impression of instant access to the world's knowledge, this is really far from the truth. It's all there, but being able to search through it for what we want or being able to find or generate insight from it involves a massive mountain of hidden work that no one really wants to do in practice.

http://oldavista.com/

Old'aVista, a play on the old Altavista search engine.

https://www.connectedpapers.com/

See also: - Research Rabbit - Open Knowledge Maps

https://openknowledgemaps.org/

Open Knowledge Maps uses the open-source Bielefeld Academic Search Engine and in 2021 indicated that it covers 270 million documents including preprints. Open Knowledge Maps also curates its index to remove spam.

How much spam is included in the journal article space? I've heard of incredibly low quality and poorly edited journals, so filtering those out may be fairly easy to do, but are there smaller levels of individual spam below that?

https://openknowledgemaps.org/

Open Knowledge maps is a visual literature search tool that is based on keywords rather than on a paper's title, author, or DOI. The service was founded in 2015 by Peter Kraker, a former scholarly communication researcher at Graz University of Technology.

https://www.connectedpapers.com/

https://twitter.com/ConnectedPapers

Something about the name Connected Papers reminds me of the same sort of linking name that Manfred Kuehn gave to his note taking software ConnectedText.

Definition of "Algospeak"

In order to get around algorithms that demote content in social media feeds, communities have coined new words or new meanings to existing words to communicate their sentiment.

This is affecting TikTok in particular because its algorithm is more heavy-handed in what users see. This is also causing people who want to be seen to tailor their content—their speech—to meet the algorithms needs. It is like search engine optimization for speech.

Article discovered via Cory Doctorow at The "algospeak" dialect

This is a great question and I ask it frequently with many different answers.

I've not seen specific numbers, but I suspect that the majority of Hypothes.is users are annotating in small private groups/classes using their learning management system (LMS) integrations through their university. As a result, using it and hoping for a big social experience is going to be discouraging for most.

Of course this doesn't mean that no one is out there. After all, here you are following my RSS feed of annotations and asking these questions!

I'd say that 95+% or more of my annotations are ultimately for my own learning and ends. If others stumble upon them and find them interesting, then great! But I'm not really here for them.

As more people have begun using Hypothes.is over the past few years I have slowly but surely run into people hiding in the margins of texts and quietly interacted with them and begun to know some of them. Often they're also on Twitter or have their own websites too which only adds to the social glue. It has been one of the slowest social media experiences I've ever had (even in comparison to old school blogging where discovery is much higher in general use). There has been a small uptick (anecdotally) in Hypothes.is use by some in the note taking application space (Obsidian, Roam Research, Logseq, etc.), so I've seen some of them from time to time.

I can only think of one time in the last five or so years in which I happened to be "in a text" and a total stranger was coincidentally reading and annotating at the same time. There have been a few times I've specifically been in a shared text with a small group annotating simultaneously. Other than this it's all been asynchronous experiences.

There are a few people working at some of the social side of Hypothes.is if you're searching for it, though even their Hypothes.is presences may seem as sparse as your own at present @tonz.

Some examples:

@peterhagen Has built an alternate interface for the main Hypothes.is feed that adds some additional discovery dimensions you might find interesting. It highlights some frequent annotators and provide a more visual feed of what's happening on the public Hypothes.is timeline as well as data from HackerNews.

@flancian maintains anagora.org, which is like a planet of wikis and related applications, where he keeps a list of annotations on Hypothes.is by members of the collective at https://anagora.org/latest

@tomcritchlow has experimented with using Hypothes.is as a "traditional" comments section on his personal website.

@remikalir has a nice little tool https://crowdlaaers.org/ for looking at documents with lots of annotations.

Right now, I'm also in an Obsidian-based book club run by Dan Allosso in which some of us are actively annotating the two books using Hypothes.is and dovetailing some of this with activity in a shared Obsidian vault. see: https://boffosocko.com/2022/03/24/55803196/. While there is a small private group for our annotations a few of us are still annotating the books in public. Perhaps if I had a group of people who were heavily interested in keeping a group going on a regular basis, I might find the value in it, but until then public is better and I'm more likely to come across and see more of what's happening out there.

I've got a collection of odd Hypothes.is related quirks, off label use cases, and experiments: https://boffosocko.com/tag/hypothes.is/ including a list of those I frequently follow: https://boffosocko.com/about/following/#Hypothesis%20Feeds

Like good annotations and notes, you've got to put some work into finding the social portion what's happening in this fun little space. My best recommendation to find your "tribe" is to do some targeted tag searches in their search box to see who's annotating things in which you're interested.

https://elicit.org/

Prior to concordances of the Christian Bible there are examples of Hebrew manuscripts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that have lists of words and sentences or phrases in which they occurred. They didn't include exact locations with the presumption being that most scholars would know the texts well enough to quickly find them based on the phrases used.

Early concordances were later made unnecessary as tools as digital search could dramatically decrease the load. However these tools might miss the value found in the serendipity of searching through broad word lists.

Has anyone made a concordance search and display tool to automatically generate concordances of any particular texts? Do professional indexers use these? What might be the implications of overlapping concordances of seminal texts within the corpus linguistics space?

Fun tools like the Bible Munger now exist to play around with find and replace functionality. https://biblemunger.micahrl.com/munge

Online tools also have multi-translation versions that will show translational differences between the seemingly ever-growing number of English translations of the Bible.

How much history is covered here?

Will mnemotechniques be covered here? Spaced repetition? Note taking methods in the commonplace book or zettelkasten traditions?

https://search.marginalia.nu/

A search engine for IndieWeb sites.

Search and discovery are hard problems in an ever increasing informational overload riddled society.

https://only-the-questions.glitch.me/

A tool for extracting all the questions out of a particular text.

Via: https://uxdesign.cc/the-power-of-seeing-only-the-questions-in-a-piece-of-writing-8f486d2c6d7d

Link to [[searching for questions while reading]]

Ask and ye shall receive!

https://uxdesign.cc/the-power-of-seeing-only-the-questions-in-a-piece-of-writing-8f486d2c6d7d

I made a web tool that takes a piece of writing and strips out everything but the questions: https://t.co/i8FsoFwPt4<br><br>Here's the first chapter of Moby Dick<br><br>Quite fascinating to see this aspect of a literary style pic.twitter.com/tHrHA7jsdW

— Clive Thompson (@pomeranian99) February 27, 2022

Link to [[searching for questions while reading]]

https://cartoonbank.com/web/guest/home

https://boingboing.net/2022/01/03/tip-add-reddit-to-search-queries-on-to-get-authentic-human-results-untainted-by-seo.html

Tip: add "reddit" to search queries to get authentic human results untainted by SEO

https://beta.flim.ai/

Budak, C., Soroka, S., Singh, L., Bailey, M., Bode, L., Chawla, N., Davis-Kean, P., Choudhury, M. D., Veaux, R. D., Hahn, U., Jensen, B., Ladd, J., Mneimneh, Z., Pasek, J., Raghunathan, T., Ryan, R., Smith, N. A., Stohr, K., & Traugott, M. (2021). Modeling Considerations for Quantitative Social Science Research Using Social Media Data. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3e2ux

Metadata supports search

The online information environment | Royal Society. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/online-information-environment/

https://www.goedel.io/p/tools-for-thought-but-not-for-search

Searching for two ingredients in an effort to find a recipe that will allow their use should be de rigueur in a personal knowledge manager, sadly it doesn't appear to be the case.

This sort of simple search not working in these tools is just silly.

They should be able to search across blocks, pages, and even provide graph views to help in this process. Where are all the overlaps of these words within one's database?

These are generally useful. I've used most of them regularly for the past three years. In particular one of my primary modes of reading Twitter is with the link: https://twitter.com/search?q=filter%3Afollows%20-filter%3Areplies&src=typed_query&f=live

https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/search.php

https://www.ru.nl/ptrs/chps/abbreviationes/abbrevpro.php

I wonder how much Captcha technology may have helped to remedy this in the intervening years?

Reading is hard to disrupt.

Speeding up and dramatically improving the reading process is incredibly difficult. No one has yet made really huge strides in this space. Google has made it imminently more accessible to the masses, but it still requires a lot of physical work and processing on our part.

Most digital note taking systems have two major advantages of paper versions:

• It's harder to misplace material unless one's system has major flaws or one accidentally deletes content
• Digital search is far more powerful and efficient than manual search

https://indieweb-search.jamesg.blog/about

Methods for attacking a research problem about history used here:

• Web research
• Journal database research
• Zotero reference manager stub
• Research Rabbit (AI search)
• Reach out on various social media channels

Not mentioned, but perhaps useful:

• Standard library search (WorldCat)
• Internet Archive search (scanned historical textbooks)
• Off-label and dark web services (Library Genesis, Pirate Bay, etc.)
• Open access and OER sources (this will probably find newer perspectives and newer texts which sometimes have philosophical outlines of what they're trying to change for the future versus the pedagogies of the past)
• Current curricula and recommended textbooks at major universities on particular books and potential comparisons to those of the past (perhaps via Internet Archive).

What is missing in this train of thought is search. The real challenge is recalling of information easily, whether that is traditional search or something more AI-ish that can uncover connections between items that I don't see myself. What I want is a tool that can search across all my repositories, and that requires either APIs for communication or standard data storage formats. I prefer APis.

Cancel culture and modern mob justice are possible as the result of volumes of more detail and data as well as large doses of context collapse.

In some cases, it's probably justified to help level the playing field for those in power who are practicing hypocrisy, but in others, it's simply a lack of context by broader society who have kneejerk reactions which have the ability to be "remembered" by broader society with search engines.

How might Google allow the right to forget to serve as a means of restorative justice?

What about the emergence of non-hierarchal methods? (Can these logically be sorted somehow without this structure?)

With digital commonplacing methods, I find that I can sort and search for things temporally by date and time as well as by tag/heading.

Cross reference:

• https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Missing-Link-Luhmanns-Denkmaschine-endlich-im-Netz-4364512.html#annotations:ed1DZDnAEeyWdbsat73FrA
• http://takingnotenow.blogspot.com/2007/12/luhmanns-zettelkasten.html#annotations:IBHItPaBEeuVb1Nwojnj3Q

Else, H. (2021). Giant, free index to world’s research papers released online. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02895-8

Of course!

typical answer to something

give a clarifying expression

to deal with something in a practical non-theoretical way.

another word for clarification

Matthews, D. (2021). Drowning in the literature? These smart software tools can help. Nature, 597(7874), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02346-4

https://wptavern.com/the-quest-for-the-perfect-wordpress-admin-search-tool

This is closely related to solving a particular well-defined problem rather than solving a more general problem.

This story of find and replace has chilling future potential. What if a dictatorial government doesn't like your content. It can be all to easy to remove the digital versions and replace them whole hog for "approved" ones.

Where does democracy live in such a world? Consider similar instances when the Trump administration forced the disappearance of government websites and data.

Broad recycle of Tim Bray's article https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2018/01/15/Google-is-losing-its-memory with an example of the same effect for their site.

DuckDuckGo has a better index that doesn't prioritize for "right now" or currency.

I think I've read this bit about Google forgetting from Tim Bray(?) before. Would be useful to have additional back up for it.

Not being able to rely on Google means that one's on personal repositories of data in their commonplace book becomes far more valuable in the search proposition. This means that Google search is more of a discovery mechanism rather than having the value of the sort of personalized search people may be looking for.

This is a big lesson. As a field, we still have not thoroughly learned it, as we are continuing to make the same kind of mistakes. To see this, and to effectively resist it, we have to understand the appeal of these mistakes. We have to learn the bitter lesson that building in how we think we think does not work in the long run. The bitter lesson is based on the historical observations that 1) AI researchers have often tried to build knowledge into their agents, 2) this always helps in the short term, and is personally satisfying to the researcher, but 3) in the long run it plateaus and even inhibits further progress, and 4) breakthrough progress eventually arrives by an opposing approach based on scaling computation by search and learning. The eventual success is tinged with bitterness, and often incompletely digested, because it is success over a favored, human-centric approach.

A relatively comprehensive view of Wouter Groeneveld's commonplacing workflow. There are a few bits missing here and there, but he's got most of the bigger basics down that a majority of people seem to have found and discovered.

He's got a strong concept of indexing, search, and even some review, which many miss. There's some organic work toward combinatorial thought, but only via the search piece.

I should make a list of the important pieces for more advanced versions to have. I've yet to see any articles or work on this.

Search on documents returning something in the neighborhood of 500 words or so seems to be the right amount of information. One wants a few paragraphs related to an idea and not an entire book which takes longer to scan.

Google search does this type of search and it's also what Google Books attempts to do as well when searching specifically there.

An interesting take from a significant modern researcher/writer about commonplaces in the digital era. He's particularly enamoured of the fact that Evernote dovetails with Google searches to show details from his own notebooks which he's saved in the past.

Search in commonplace books is definitely a must have feature.

Racine, Nicole, Rachel Eirich, Jessica Cookee, Jenney Zhu, Paolo Pador, Nicole Dunnewold, and Sheri Madigan. ‘When the Bough Breaks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mental Health Symptoms in Mothers of Young Children during the COVID-19 Pandemic’. PsyArXiv, 7 May 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u8pnh.

They certainly could. I've seen the author haunting the IndieWeb chat in the past and they've mentioned that crawling and saving data can tend to be a bit on the expensive side, so they're trying to do more targeted search/save when they can. Perhaps as the project matures, it will add these sorts of functionalities.

Not only am I unsurprised by this, but I'd be surprised if it were otherwise. The logic is that schizophrenia is a sleep disorder, and exercise enhances sleep. Additionally, lack of movement is one of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Therefore, this poverty of movement may play a role in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia symptoms.

I need to start a google search document with predictions prior to actually searching. It will slow down my research speed, but it is necessary in order to provide unbiased data on my intuitive understanding of diseases. It seems like the majority of my strong intuitions are true. Edit: I'll just record the search phrase in my hypothes.is notes. This one was "exercise schizophrenia"

Coenen, A., & Gureckis, T. (2021). The distorting effects of deciding to stop sampling information. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tbrea

One of the pieces missing from Hypothes.is is the curateable notebook which more easily allows one to create new content from one's annotations.

Search is certain there, but being able to move the pieces about and re-synthesize them into new emergent pieces is the second necessary step.

Veille à ce qu'il ne manque pas d'alcool à la maison.

fexe+el (fexe) v. -- search/seek by all means.

ba -- the (?).

kër gi -- house; family.

gi -- the (indicates nearness).

bañ v. -- refuse, resist, refuse to; to hate; verb marking the negation in subordinate clauses.

ñàkk v. / ñàkk bi -- vaccinate / vaccine (not sure exactly how this fits in the sentence if it's even the right translation -- perhaps it has to do with surgical alcohol rather than drinking alcohol).

alkol ji -- (French) surgical alcohol. (I'm certain this is also used for the type of alcohol you drink -- but sangara is probably the most used term).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUjvAItysA

According to Devin Google is good at answering a question such as "what is this thing?", but not good at answering a questions "what do people who know a lot about this thing say about it?"

This reminds me of social search

This seems like a really promising pattern for many data-driven problems. Browsers can support opt-in donation to contribute their data to improve Web search, social media, recommendations, lots of services that implicitly require lots of operational data.

Simone, Costanza De, Antonella Battisti, and Azzurra Ruggeri. “Differential Impact of Web Habits and Active Navigation on Adolescents’ Online Learning.” PsyArXiv, March 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hsvc4.

Reframing:

SEO is really just various commonplace books competing to be the most important zettels in the world for particular taxonomies.

What if we add in a dose of Llull's combinatorial thought to the idea of a search engine? What if the search engine can remember the top 50 categories in my personal commonplace book and show overlapping searches of those terms? What if it's even more combinatorial and randomly chooses overlaps from any words in my commonplace? Is that more or less valuable as an idea generator?

Is it more fruitful to randomly work on various entries every day in an effort to tie them into our other thoughts?

Google search is just an algorithmic search version of John Locke's commonplace book index iterated across millions of individual commonplace books.

Indices are simply a physical manifestation of metadata upon which we built a rudimentary search algorithm.

Google

Whoa! Super organized site with lots of ways to find these little apps.

Want: "web design" "download link" Get: "download" "web design"

With the advent of search engines, search as a paradigm for retrieving files has become ubiquitous.

I assume this gets search traffic because people hope/assume that since there's a React "material-ui" that there might already be a "svelte-material-ui" port/adaptation available. So they search for exactly that (like I did). That and being the first to create that something (with that name).