Linked References
Backlinks as a concept collector — the system does the sorting
- 1While writing, set concepts, people and clients as a [[…]] reference rather than just mentioning them.☐Checkpoint: Every relevant mention carries a [[…]].
- 2Separate same-named concepts through the page hierarchy — [[Client/Webb]] for the client, [[Webb]] for the colleague.☐Checkpoint: The client and the colleague sit on separate pages.
- 3Open the concept page and read the backlink list as its content — it needs no body of its own.☐Checkpoint: Every mention appears with its context sentence.
- 4Review the Unlinked References on the concept page — mentions without [[…]] appear as a suggestion.☐Checkpoint: The suggestion list of Unlinked References is visible.
- 5Convert the sensible Unlinked References into real [[…]] references; leave the rest deliberately as they are.☐Checkpoint: No obviously missing link left in the suggestion.
- 6Spot check: take one concept page and verify the backlink list holds all known matters.☐Checkpoint: Completeness confirmed against a sample.
Everything you have ever thought about a concept now sits under the concept page. You do not sort it — the backlinks do. The name Webb turns up in 14 notes; on the page [[Webb]] all 14 mentions appear, without you adding a single line.
Why hand-kept concept pages turn incomplete
The usual practice is a person page for Webb with a list of the matters Webb appears in. Every new note takes two steps — the note itself, and the entry on the person page. By the 200th matter the entry is missing. By the 800th, nobody knows whether the list is complete.
5 rules for Linked References
- [[…]] is the only upkeep. Write [[Webb]] in a note and you have updated the person page with it.
- Backlinks are contextual finds. The concept page carries the sentences the concept appeared in — not just the titles.
- Unlinked References are the follow-up. Mentions without [[…]] are listed as a suggestion, not linked silently.
- Page hierarchy for domains. [[Client/Webb]] separates the client from the colleague Webb; the backlink list stays unambiguous.
- Concept page as a collection. The page [[Webb]] needs no body — the backlinks are the body.
# 2026-05-04 Workshop appointment
- [[Client/Webb]] reports bearing damage on the spindle
- Matter no. 4711, callback agreed for 06/05
- Owner: [[Hartley]], cover [[Lawson]]With this one note, three backlinks appear on three concept pages. None of them was set by hand.
Before and after — the person page for Webb
| Hand-kept page | Automatic backlink list |
|---|---|
| List of matters, added by hand | List of notes with [[Webb]], system-generated |
| Upkeep per mention: 1 entry | Upkeep per mention: 0 min |
| Completeness unclear past ~50 matters | Completeness given by definition |
| Context missing — only titles linked | The sentence [[Webb]] appeared in is shown |
| Client/colleague split done by hand | Split via [[Client/Webb]] vs [[Webb]] |
Field data from the 1,200-page store
- Upkeep per concept page: 0 min
- Forgotten notes recovered per 1,000-page store: 23
- Link density after 3 months: 4.2 backlinks/page
The 23 recovered notes are the difference between the hand-kept list and the backlink list, measured across a store of 1,000 pages over three months. The notes were there, just not entered on the concept page.
An honest question
When did you last link by hand what the backlink list already knew?
Answer “this morning” and you are keeping two stores in parallel. Answer “I don’t know” and you have forgotten one of them. Both are the very thing Linked References replace.
The system does the upkeep.
Write [[…]], and the concept page fills itself. Your second brain collects everything you ever thought about something — a companion that asks for no second list.
Reserve your slot··free →