Regarding bidirectional fields mentioned in AMA Posted also in Slack.
Search nodes are ok in many cases, in some they are even better. But still they are a different feature. Sometimes when using bidirectional fields I don’t aim to have any searching, I just want to have a field filled automatically in connected node/field. There are some differences between these two features and the key difference is that searches are asymmetrical and bidirectional fields are symmetrical, as mentioned below:
Searches:
GOOD
get whole spectrum of results and can be tailored for a specific need/search
BAD
need to be opened (out not with heading formatting)
sometimes we need to wait to get their results
asymmetrical - I need to think where to put the field and where to put search, or to put both in both places
one-sided - I can’t have two searches working properly in two connected fields like in >Book and >Author. I need to specify these fields in both nodes or at least in one with search in second. With #book node and >Authors field I will have an #author node with ?Books search. But in this setting I can go to one of already existing #book nodes and add new author there (in >author field), however I cannot do the same with the #author node - in ?books search I can’t add the existing node to that search and populate it’s >Author field to match search criteria. With bidirectional fields I would search and link to the book I want to add to the >Books field.
Bidirectional fields:
GOOD:
have only nodes added by user or via bidirectional automation (can be good or bad)
symmetrical - can be edited from both nodes/fields the same way, I don’t need to think where is the field and where is the search
show their content instantly, no need to wait for the results
BAD:
have only nodes added by user or via bidirectional automation (can be good or bad)
Additionally bidirectional fields seem to be less of a challenge for Tana as they are static, without dynamic searching in searches which could be heavy for Tana with multiple bidirectional fields/searches.
Maybe there is some way to connect a field with a search in one special field wich would behave like a bidirectional field normally but could be expanded to enable search and linking links in unlinked references to display that searched nodes in this field in the future without the need for search (with searched and then linked nodes modified like bidirectional nodes should be modified automatically).
You don't have permission to do this.
You're going a bit too fast! Take a break and try again in a moment.
Something went wrong! Please reload the page and try again.
Regarding bidirectional fields mentioned in AMA Posted also in Slack.
Search nodes are ok in many cases, in some they are even better. But still they are a different feature. Sometimes when using bidirectional fields I don’t aim to have any searching, I just want to have a field filled automatically in connected node/field. There are some differences between these two features and the key difference is that searches are asymmetrical and bidirectional fields are symmetrical, as mentioned below:
Searches:
Bidirectional fields:
Additionally bidirectional fields seem to be less of a challenge for Tana as they are static, without dynamic searching in searches which could be heavy for Tana with multiple bidirectional fields/searches.
Maybe there is some way to connect a field with a search in one special field wich would behave like a bidirectional field normally but could be expanded to enable search and linking links in unlinked references to display that searched nodes in this field in the future without the need for search (with searched and then linked nodes modified like bidirectional nodes should be modified automatically).