https://debugger.medium.com/a-search-engine-that-finds-you-weird-old-books-3a74fbb5f3d4

Weird Old Book Finder: http://weird-old-book-finder.glitch.me/

"Finding Optimal Solutions to Rubik's Cub e Using Pattern Databases" by Richard E. Korf, AAAI 1997.

The famous "Korf Algorithm" for finding the optimal solution to any Rubik's Cube state.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/swift-selection-search/

Swiftly access your search engines in a popup panel when you select text in a webpage.

A quick UI method for selecting text and then searching within it using a variety of engines, wikis, etc.

ChatGPT's synthesis of information versus Google Search's list of links

The key difference here, though, is that with a list of links, one can follow the links and evaluate the sources. With a ChatGPT response, there are no citations to the sources—just an amalgamation of statements that may or may not be true.

The time it takes to make notes is an important investment. If it's not worth the time, what were you actually doing? Evergreen/permanent notes are only useful if you're going to use them later in some sort of output. Beyond this they may be useful for later search.

But if you're not going to search them or review them, which the writer says they didn't, then what was the point?

Have a reason for taking a note is of supreme importance. Otherwise, you're just collecting scraps...

People who have this problem shouldn't be using digital tools they should be spending even more time writing by hand. This will force them into being more parsimonious.

https://micro.blog/posts/search?q=indieweb

an alternate form for micro.blog search functionality

https://micro.blog/discover/search?q=indieweb

Micro.blog search functionality uses a url query (example https://micro.blog/discover/search?q=indieweb), but it only includes posts which have been added to the "discovery" section and isn't a site wide search

political dimension of algorithms

Web Monetization official site with motivation, wallets, providers, browsers, search engines, tools, documentation link, explainer link, specifications link, awesome list link, github link

Useful PowerShell command to do recursive file search in Windows through PowerShell.

https://elicit.org/ - another academic search engine

https://fediverse.info/explore/people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-b_RUtL1A

LATCH method for search within note taking (Location, Alphabet, Time, Category, and Hierarchy)

https://www.bartleby.com/nonfiction/

https://www.explainpaper.com/

Another in a growing line of research tools for processing and making sense of research literature including Research Rabbit, Connected Papers, Semantic Scholar, etc.

Functionality includes the ability to highlight sections of research papers with natural language processing to explain what those sections mean. There's also a "chat" that allows you to ask questions about the paper which will attempt to return reasonable answers, which is an artificial intelligence sort of means of having an artificial "conversation with the text".

cc: @dwhly @remikalir @jeremydean

Kriminologer påpekar att forskning visar att visitationszoner inte gör någon egentlig skillnad. Dessutom utsätts oskyldiga för trakasserier.

Stop-and-search zones in Sweden mane no difference and cause innocent people to feel harassed.

As is apparently often in describing new organizing systems (commonplace books, zettelkasten, PoIC, etc.), not everyone is going to understand it the first time, or even understand what is going on or why one would want to use it.

This post by Susan is such an example.

Susan does almost immediately grasp that this might be something one could transfer into a digital system however, particularly for the search functionality.

https://www.researchrabbit.ai/

15% of daily searches are unique

Or, put another way 85% of searches are something that Google has seen before. There is no citation for this, and I think it is more complex than this because Google uses signals other than the keyed search to rank results. Still, an interesting tid-bit if the source could be tracked down.

In the article, "The New Normative: Queer Politics in The Outs," author John Sherman, a freelance writer from Brooklyn, implores reader's to give credit to show's casually- revolutionary representation of queer characters. Sherman indicates to reader's that this is a rarely great representation for its time (2012) because it gives gay characters a non-stereotypical story line. It allows it's characters to be people who just happen to be gay. In just the pilot episode, it's not hard to see this truth. With the first four queer male characters being introduced, they all have different characteristics, priorities, and dynamics with eachother that don't center around their gayness. This gives a depth to the queer character being represented without relying on the fact that their gay to do so. I think that the positive reaction to this show bodes very well for the style of queer representation being presented and will hopefully inspire more writing and content making of this kind which non-chalently gives a voice gay to story lines in a relatable- human way instead of a stereotypical and tokenising way.

I believe that Shitt's Creek also does this fairly well. Although I've only seen a couple episodes myself- I saw the character of David as a complete person and story line not defined by his gayness or partner choices although it is an obvious part of his identity.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/26/us/trump-search-affidavit-release.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

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?!

https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/statistical.html

While writing notes into a daily note page may be useful to give them a quick place to live, a note that isn't revisited is likely one that shouldn't have been made at all.

Tools for thought need to do a better job of staging ideas for follow and additional work. Leaving notes orphaned on a daily notes page may help in the quick capture process, but one needs reminders about them, means of finding them, and potential means of improving them.

If they're swept away continuously, then they only serve the sort of functionality of cleaning out of ideas that morning pages do. It's bad enough to have a massive scrap heap that looks and feels like work, but it's even worse to have it spread out among hundreds or thousands of separate files.

Does digital search fix this issue entirely? Or does it just push off the work to later when it won't be done either.

Mojeek is the 4th largest English lang. web search engine after Google, Bing and Yandex which has it's own index, crawler and algo. Index has passed 5.7 billion pages. Growing. Privacy based.

It uses it's own index with no backfill from others.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/agora/

Webb's use case here sounds like she's got the mass data, but that what she really desired was a database which she could more easily query to do her work and research. As a result, she took the flat file data and made it into a manually sortable and searchable database.

I like this phase as it captures what we surrender for convenience...

1. Regesten Da wir gesehen haben, wieviel auf tibersichtliche Ordnung bei der Zusammenstellung des Materials ankommt, muß man auf die praktische Einrichtung seiner Materialiensammlung von Anfang an bewußte Sorgfalt verwenden. Selbstverständlich lassen sich keine, im einzelnen durchweg gültigen Regeln aufstellen; aber wir können uns doch über einige allgemeine Gesichtspunkte verständigen. Nicht genug zu warnen ist vor einem regel- und ordnungslosen Anhäufen und Durcheinanderschreiben der Materialien; denn die zueinander gehörigen Daten zusammenzufinden erfordert dann ein stets erneutes Durchsehen des ganzen Materials; auch ist es dann kaum möglich, neu hinzukommende Daten an der gehörigen Stelle einzureihen. Bei irgend größeren Arbeiten muß man seine Aufzeichnungen auf einzelne lose Blätter machen, die leicht umzuordnen und denen ohne Umstände Blätter mit neuen Daten einzufügen sind. Macht man sachliche Kategorieen, so sind die zu einer Kategorie gehörigen Blätter in Umschlägen oder besser noch in Kästen getrennt zu halten; innerhalb derselben kann man chronologisch oder sachlich alphabetisch nach gewissen Schlagwörtern ordnen.

Google translation:

1. Regesture Since we have seen how much importance is placed on clear order in the gathering of material, conscious care must be exercised in the practical organization of one's collection of materials from the outset. It goes without saying that no rules that are consistently valid in detail can be set up; but we can still agree on some general points of view. There is not enough warning against a disorderly accumulation and jumble of materials; because to find the data that belong together then requires a constant re-examination of the entire material; it is also then hardly possible to line up newly added data at the appropriate place. In any large work one must make one's notes on separate loose sheets, which can easily be rearranged, and sheets of new data easily inserted. If you make factual categories, the sheets belonging to a category should be kept separate in covers or, better yet, in boxes; Within these, you can sort them chronologically or alphabetically according to certain keywords.

In a pre-digital era, Ernst Bernheim warns against "a disorderly accumulation and jumble of materials" (machine translation from German) as it means that one must read through and re-examine all their collected materials to find or make sense of them again.

In digital contexts, things are vaguely better as the result of better search through a corpus, but it's still better practice to have things with some additional level of order to prevent the creation of a "scrap heap".

link to: - https://hyp.is/i9dwzIXrEeymFhtQxUbEYQ

In 1889, Bernheim suggests making one's notes on separate loose sheets of paper so that they may be easily rearranged and new notes inserted. He suggested assigning notes to categories and keeping them separated, preferably in boxes. Then one might sort them in a variety of different ways, specifically highlighting both chronological and alphabetical order based on keywords.

(This quote is from the 1903 edition, but presumably is similar or the same in 1889, but double check this before publishing.)

Link this to the earlier section in which he suggested a variety of note orders for historical methods as well as for the potential creation of insight into one's work.

https://searx.github.io/searx/

Mentioned by Taylor Jadin.

https://warmedal.se/~bjorn/posts/2022-07-02-providing-meaningful-search-results-without-own-index.html

https://context.center/topics/indie-search/

https://wiki.nikiv.dev/web/search-engines

What a fantastic list of search engines and search related tools.

Julius Reizen in reviewing over Umberto Eco's index card system in How to Write a Thesis, defines his own "insurance card" as one which contains "hard-to-classify thoughts, questions, and areas for further inquiry". These he would keep together so that they don't otherwise get lost in the variety of other locations one might keep them

These might be akin to Ahrens' "fleeting notes" but are ones which may not easily or even immediately be converted in to "permanent notes" for one's zettelkasten. However, given their mission critical importance, they may be some of the most important cards in one's repository.

link this to - idea of centralizing one's note taking practice to a single location

Is this idea in Eco's book and Reizen is the one that gives it a name since some of the other categories have names? (examples: bibliographic index cards, reading index cards (aka literature notes), cards for themes, author index cards, quote index cards, idea index cards, connection cards). Were these "officially" named and categorized by Eco?

May be worthwhile to create a grid of these naming systems and uses amongst some of the broader note taking methods. Where are they similar, where do they differ?

Multi-search tools that have full access to multiple trusted data stores (ostensibly personal ones across notebooks, hard drives, social media services, etc.) could potentially solve the problem of needing to remember where you noted something.

Currently, in the social media space especially, this is not a realized service.

Often you may need to dig below the surface of something to find it's real value.

This is related to quotes about being able to find something interesting, redeeming, valuable about bad books as well as being able to learn from the fool.

He says this, but his advice on how to use them is too scant and/or flawed. Where are they held? How are they indexed? How are they linked so that finding and using them in the future? (especially, other than rote memory or the need to have vague memory and the ability to search for them in the future?)

The studies quoted here are in the mid 80s and early 90s before the rise of better and easier UI methods or more powerful search. I'd have to call this conclusion into question.

There's also a big difference in what people know, what people prefer, and what knowledgeable people can do most quickly.

Cross reference this with Dan Russell's research at Google that indicates that very few people know how to use ctrl-f to find or search for things in documents. - https://hyp.is/7a532uxjEeyYfTOctQHvTw/www.youtube.com/channel/UCh6KFtW4a4Ozr81GI1cxaBQ

Relate it to the idea of associative (memory) trails (Memex), songlines, and method of loci in remembering where things are -- our brains are designed to navigate using memory

Similar to the browser extension / "bug" that shows other Hypothes.is conversations and annotations.

This would be cool if it could be expanded to personal search to show you blog conversations or Twitter conversations of people you follow.

Link to: - https://boffosocko.com/2022/06/18/wikilinks-and-hashtags-as-a-portal-to-cross-site-search/ - https://boffosocko.com/2019/06/29/social-reading-user-interface-for-discovery/

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/swift-selection-search/

link to - https://boffosocko.com/2022/06/18/wikilinks-and-hashtags-as-a-portal-to-cross-site-search/

https://www.mojeek.com/

https://blog.mojeek.com/2022/02/search-choices-enable-freedom-to-seek.html

User interface options in multiple search provider selection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_ePLno5RrY

Niklas Luhmann thought of the zettelkasten as a cybernetic system.

He considers a precondition of its creation is that it ought to waive any "fixed order", allow for search, and the asking of questions.

There are only the outlines of brief and scant thoughts here however, which would have required significant amounts of additional context not contained on the card. As a result one would require additional underpinning to understand what Luhmann means here as the card definitively couldn't have been directly or easily reused for future writing beyond the basic sketch outline he provides. What proportion of cards have brief thought sketches like this versus more fully thought out and directly reusable ideas within his system? Does Schmidt provide any guidance here without reading portions of the larger corpus? How does this differ from the guidance of Ahrens?

(Translation from German to English via Google)

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/

Learn More

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?