IMO, there’s an importance piece missing from the current org-roam workflow - a review mechanism.
There are two kinds of backlinks - backlinks from journal files to topical files, and backlinks from topical files to topical files.
For most people, the frictionless workflow is to just write stuff down in the daily journal files, with appropriate links to other topical files. However, this leads to inclusion of both good and bad kind of notes in the backlinks buffer. Some of these notes are useful in the long-term, and some are not. Over time, the backlinks buffer get really long and cluttered, making skimming through it tedious.
IMO, for the creation of Evergreen Notes, one needs to go through the journal-to-topical links and synthesize them into topical notes. So, in theory, all your journal file notes would be refiled and archived to proper topical notes once in a while. (You don’t ‘discover’ any surprising connection between your notes by staring at a graph that is 70% journal files).
There are many reasons to archive a backlink otherwise - primarily when you realize a backlink doesn’t contribute anything towards your long-term knowledge.
A review workflow
Given the abovementioned problems, I think there needs to be a review mechanism that can be coupled with org-roam. It should be able to create a flow that lets you
- go through your journal notes for past X days or weeks
- for each block that refers to some topical note, it should be able to refile that block into that file (maybe under a specific ** FROM REVIEW tree so that you can open that file and decide where exactly should it go later). (What if a block refers to more than one topical notes?)
- mark a refiled block
archived/ refiledso that it does not appear in the backlinks buffer anymore (maybe the user can choose whether to show archived links in the backlinks buffer).
If any of you are already implementing some kind of weekly review, I would love to know your flow.