@ellane @gizmo

FYI, you can enable Document Mode in #Logseq using the `t d` shortcut. It will hide bullet points and you can style the page with different CSS, for example hiding block properties. This way if you want some pages to be long-form writings instead of outlines you can just enable DM and forget about indenting.

I know there is an Obsidian plugin that turns it into an outliner but it wouldn't have Logseq features that focus on blocks. Instead in Logseq the `t d` shortcut is very conventient to quickly go back to a long-form writing look when needed.

@post @ellane @gizmo It’s true that Document Mode will *hide* the bullets in Logseq, but they’re still there in the file. And that’s going to create issues later if you use it to write standard prose that you aren’t just going to leave sitting in Logseq.

@EpiphanicSynchronicity

You can export it removing dashes and indentation :)

Even without Logseq, it is trivial to remove the first two columns of characters and turn the first level blocks into standard Markdown paragraphs.

@post Thanks—that’s important information. Even so, I doubt I’ll ever use Logseq as my main PKM solution. I know some people find that full-time outliners help them write things down more freely, but to me, having to write everything in the bullets and sub-bullets of an outline would be almost as annoying as having to write everything in the cells of a spreadsheet.

@EpiphanicSynchronicity

With Document Mode enabled (so hidden bullet points) and a look (maybe using custom CSS) that resemble a longform editor like Obsidian, what would be needed to make you consider Logseq valid for you? Just out of curiosity.

@post I don’t know. I felt comfortable with Obsidian almost immediately, in a way I didn’t with Logseq or (for example) Notion. I like the note-centric approach of Obsidian, and I can still move blocks up and down with a keybinding, and link to sections. Logseq’s “throw everything in a running daily journal” approach doesn’t click with me. I also like Obsidian’s speed and reliability.

I’m thinking of trying Logseq again as a PDF annotator, however.

@EpiphanicSynchronicity

That “throw everything in a running daily journal” should really be removed from official documentation though, it feels so wrong now that I am used to Logseq and I think it gives new users the idea that it's a preferred approach, while Logseq really makes you free to implement many different workflows.

I even have different graphs with very different workflows and as someone said: "in Logseq ambuiguity is a feature", you decide how its very general tools apply everytime you use them.