Just like Heyde indicated about the slip box note taking system with respect to traditional notebook based systems in 1931, one of the reasons we still aren't broadly using Heyde's system is that we "do not know any better". This is compounded with the fact that the computer revolution makes information retrieval much easier than it had been before. However there is such an information glut and limitations to search, particularly if it's stored in multiple places, that it may be advisable to go back to some of these older, well-tried methods.

Link to ideas of "single source" of notes as opposed to multiple storage locations as is seen in social media spaces in the 2010-2020s.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120122115952/http://pileofindexcards.org/blog/2006/10/13/one-pocket-rule/

Noguchi Yukio had a "one pocket rule" which they first described in “「超」整理法 (cho seiri ho)”. The broad idea was to store everything in one place as a means of saving time by not needing to search in multiple repositories for the thing you were hunting for. Despite this advice the Noguchi Filing System didn't take complete advantage of this as one would likely have both a "home" and an "office" system, thus creating two pockets, a problem that exists in an analog world, but which can be mitigated in a digital one.

The one pocket rule can be seen in the IndieWeb principles of owning all your own data on your own website and syndicating out from there. Your single website has the entire store of all your material which makes search much easier. You don't need to recall which platform (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al.) you posted something on, you can save time and find the thing much more quickly by searching one place.

This principle also applies to zettelkasten and commonplace books (well indexed), which allow you to find the data or information you put into them quickly and easily.

This works, but I'm a bit disappointed at this advice/revelation...

Look at this lovely explicit phrase "chain of thought" here!

This is not a well attested viewpoint from my research, but obviously happens, and Heyde calls out personal experience to underline his point.

Where is he going to place the work of creating this chain of thought? Will it be at the "traditional" writing (arranging) part of the process, or will the chain be created as one goes a la Luhmann's ultimate practice?!

Page 155

Boardman on The Change-Up brought on by the web as to the most important consideration in Source selection sharing information retrieval by scientist

One of the findings worth revisiting is the prior to the 1990s, accessibility was the most important consideration and Source selection. Has information access improved, relevance and quality became the most important selection factors, which has implications for the design of searching tools.