Nested Tagging: the way bear creates a sort of “table of content” out of nested tags is unsurpassed. It’s easy to find the same note in several places, everything is well organized, renaming tags works like charme, and moving a note from one place to another is straight forward.
Internal Links: creating Wiki-Links with autocompletion is as easy as can be. I’m using this feature heavily and I love it. Research in my notes is so much easier.
Notes in bear look just pleasant to my eye.
There is one thing, that I would like the bear developers to look at:
When I rename a note, almost all the Wiki-Links are renamed as well - which is fine. However, there are almost always some Wiki-Links that are not renamed. When I click those links, a new note (with the “old” title of the renamed note) is created. Also, in the autocompletion window I see a lot of duplicates, as well as entries with “old” names. Choosing an “old” title by mistake (i. e. a title that has been renamed to some other title) creates a Wiki-Link that would again create a new note with the “old” title. Somehow I learned to live with this flaw, but it would be great, if the Wiki-Link feature would be more reliable. May be some list, with all those links, that link to a note that in fact doesn’t exist?
My bear contains several thousands of notes, it’s my personal Wiki. It also contains notes, that I’m not willing to share - so, sorry, but I cannot provide an export file of my bear.
I have been experiencing the same issue with wiki links not being updated when a note name is changed and then when that wiki link is clicked it creates a new empty note. What concerns me is that there seems to be no way to tell how often this is happening or what situations are causing it?
Wanted to bump this thread to the top. I continue to have issues with wiki-link flaws as well. My main issues come from the autocomplete suggestions when creating a note link. Autocomplete shows duplicates and some notes are not suggested at all. This has been a long running problem that is frustrating. This feature just has to work in order to effectively interconnect notes and ideas.
This is partly why I switched a while ago (maybe 3 or 4 years ago or longer) to using the bearid for note links (from “copy link to note”). I too have thousands of notes and have some duplicate titles. This method is wonderfully reliable but then backlinks don’t show.
Thanks for the hint, #crumbletop.
However, I don’t see the difference between a link created by opening 2 square brackets or created by using the “copy link to note” feature - in my case there is actually none, specifically the id is not used.
And by the way: the backlink feature is not reliable - imho one more reason, why internal links need a decent refactoring.
Sorry. If you paste the link directly you get a [[ link. If you create a markdown hyperlink on iOS, cmd-k on Mac the bearid url reference is in the link and you can specify the display text. Something like this:
[text to display](bear://x-callback-url/open-note?id=ED5E162E-5C77-4E44-AC1C-EA6A175204E9)
I wish backlinks worked and for me the lesser of 2 evils is links to notes that don’t fail. I would love for backlinks to work for any note links (all links as equal citizens). So my post wasn’t to provide a work around, but rather to say the flaws in the links and backlinks systems make us choose.