reply to u/rafael-adao at https://www.reddit.com/r/antinet/comments/1466lls/comment/jnp0kpa/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

If they're your books, then feel free. This will allow you to do more over time; then you can be more selective the second time through for the most important things which you can excerpt for your Ph.D. Later you'll find that you don't have to worry about over or under-selection because you can always revisit your marginalia (or your overselected bibcards) and excerpt things as you need them. If you don't make the marks/traces, it's a lot harder to revisit the path you took through the forest. Your readings and the marks you make can be thought of as blazing a trail for subsequent trips through the material and related materials. This can also be particularly useful when you do syntopical readings with related materials. Quite often I find in retrospect that I need more explicit notes to connect to things from newer readings. Being able to revisit those older highlights and annotations makes it much easier to find those things that I know I know, but didn't manage to capture the first time around.

Over time, and with practice you'll find your "Goldilocks" zone.

I like this. While the truth of things is what should be aimed for, we should still seek to address our audience in a pleasing manner. Not annoy, not overly delight, but find a sweet spot somewhere between.