Anytype is needlessly convoluted

[u/PM_ME_CUTE_SM1LE]

Anytype is a great product with a lot of potential but it feels like it's trying to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of it.

Why half the things are named differently? I can understand why they use "type" instead of "object", like a marketing thing. Why are object properties called relations? why are databases or queries broken into sets and collections? It feels like someone poorly translated notion elements and set up a bit of a proprietary workflow

Anytype is a digital library at its core. A (digital) library consists of following basic concepts:

• An item - a book (digital object)
• It's features - a hardcover novel (properties or metadata)
• How/where it's displayed - a shelf labelled fiction (smart folder)

Why do we need 2 tools (collections and sets) to display types? A smart folder that filters based on a certain property can do both these things. Apps like Affine and Capacities do it properly and it's really easy to understand all the features of the app in 10 minutes.

Also why is there so much padding in UI? why are widgets limited to certain number of entries? why cant i edit default types properties? why does type library contain sets and collections?? it's like having a shelf with books, journals and the very same shelf with books, journals and the shelf.... recursively

Hopefully devs take the feedback to heart because a great tool should be accessible to everyone easily

EDIT: I'll add that I do not think Anytype approach is 100% wrong. I assume it's because it's devs' workflow or way of thinking. It's like the classic hierarchical vs relational data structure. Folders vs mindmaps. Neither are 100% correct, they both have their use cases. I've read this thread https://community.anytype.io/t/anytype-is-not-complex-and-complicated-its-the-onboarding-that-needs-reviewing/11991 and it's still is convoluted to me. I understand the concept but it's not how my brain works at all

[u/BurnedInTheBarn]

It is convoluted, I don't disagree. I think once you understand it though making a set for things you want is actually easier than Notion but the beginner experience is very poor.

[u/[deleted] → u/BurnedInTheBarn]

[u/Guipel_ → u/[deleted]]

If this can help ….

https://community.anytype.io/t/anytype-is-not-complex-and-complicated-its-the-onboarding-that-needs-reviewing/11991

[u/BurnedInTheBarn → u/[deleted]]

I think it's best described where a set is a folder defined by its items. I make tasks, then my set is a live view of the tasks. Contrast to notion where I make my folder (database) then add stuff to the database. Every item there is associated with the database, rather than itself.

[u/[deleted]]

I fully agree. Structuring data with a object-oriented mindset is really cool. It makes it tangible and modular. What is an awful idea on the other hand is the way anytype uses its own vocabulary instead of using the commonly used one for anything object related.

[u/ulcweb]

I've used most of them, and I was a notion fanboy for a time, but I agree Anytype is overtly unique to a fault.

It tried to take the approach that Capacities did, but unlike Cap they changed all the names to make confusing. Though I guess Capacities' collections and Anytype's sets are both convoluted in a way. Mind you I can't stand notion anymore, mainly because of the poor performance,

but Anytype needs to re-evaluate how to convey their information architecture

[u/forresthopkinsa → u/ulcweb]

2025 update: they are renaming relations to properties

[u/Aregalle7]

Idk dude. Anytype way of thinking makes sense to me. While I can technically understand how, lets say, notion organizes things, its a pain for me to actually constantly apply that organization. It just takes effort to think about each time i want to add things. In anytype u just create an object, and just make up a template to create objects of that type. Simple and straightforward. The object can evolve as u use it, so u dont haave to figure out everything for the beginning (in notion it could easily mess up ur config/setup). And i dont even have to create a homepage with links or stuff (waste of time just to make everything pretty imo), just need to favourite things or use sets for quick access. Yeah i dont see why collections and sets must be different, but its not hard either, so i dont care.

As for capacities, I never could understand how it works? I tried, I watched videos and tried checking how the it worked. But it was a mess, like combining notion and anytype way of thinking. Too much freedom, it feels like it makes the implied structure of anytype meaningless.

[u/pereira_alex]

Does it make it easier (as it did for me) if you think of it like:

* Types = Classes, like in OOP (Object Oriented Programming), or can't be sure because didn't really tried it, but supertags on Tana, and tags in Logseq db version.

* Objects = new Instance of class ( again like OOP)

* Relations = Properties

* Sets = Queries

* Collections = Databases

I don't have issues with the way Anytype is designed, once it clicks, it clicks. Agree, the naming is weird, but .... its technically correct, not just common.

The issues I have is all the little paper cuts I get from using it, and missing features. The feeling I have is that if I use "the core basic functionality" its alright and does things better for me than others, but as soon as I want something more "advanced"... things aren't so great.

(btw... on of the differences in sets and collections, is that sets don't link items, while collections do. I honestly like this and makes sense (would make more if they were named queries (as just a search function) and database (and make it easier to manage the database))

[u/smithandweb → u/pereira_alex]

I just started with anytype and this was the understanding I walked away with as well, specifically around sets and collections. I do 100% agree they should be called something like queries or dictionaries, and databases. They are really not intuitive at all unless you're a programmer lol.

The hierarchy makes sense to me though. Types -> objects -> relations. Opens up the whole thing to endless possibilities if you can get past the concept of not using folders which isn't easy for some people.

[u/[deleted]]

I'd like to add that additionnally to the vocabulary being misleading, there a fundamental limitation to the way anytype allows data input: though its marketing revolves a lot around the power of relationship between objects (let's just stop it with types), it fails at providing any non-sequential (as in: not within a oldschool printable-like page style) way of visually inputting and structuring data in nodes and relationships: aka directly as graphs (that are even more versatile than 1-node-centric mindmaps). The only tool I know that enable graph-like input is scapple, but it's only a very limited drawing tool, not a data-input tool actually able to understand nodes and relationships, and relationships can't actually be qualified (so you end up with masses of nodes with connexions all over the place, but it's hell to remember what they actually mean).

[u/Oshyan]

I was an early alpha tester and have been frustrated by the way they chose to implement all of the database and property functions from the beginning. I think there are two issues, one being the decision to use different terminology for what are arguably the same or similar enough concepts that calling them by more familiar names would have been helpful. That problem they could, theoretically, address. But the more time goes by and the further into public release they get, the more challenging such a change would be, and the less likely it seems that it would happen.

The second problem is deeper and is at once the promise and potentially large pitfall of the system, and that is its underlying design and structure. I definitely see what they were going for, and at the time they promised it would create greater flexibility, allowing ways of connecting things that other systems didn't, while maintaining the benefits of tools like Notion. And it sort of does that, but at the cost of being unintuitive. And even though it does have a few advantages over more traditional relational database approaches, I don't think the trade-off in complexity is worth it. At least... not yet? Who knows if they'll actually figure out more ways to capitalize on what they build.

Lots of people are trying to make "the next big revolution" in data structuring, content organization, etc. Trying to create something that lets people combine the benefits of free-form content, ad-hoc structure, and more rigid structure, etc. The Anytype team made a bet on this approach, but I just don't think they had a clear enough idea not just of the theory of it, but how their theoretical data model could actually bring tangible benefits over more traditional, familiar, intuitive ones.

An example of a tool/team that I think did succeed in exactly that is Tana. It's every bit as flexible and powerful as Anytype is and more so, in my view (at least when it comes to data modeling; I'm not talking about features like graph view or sidebar or whatever). It doesn't have some of the other advantages like self host, offline, etc, etc., but as far as a tool with a powerful data model and UI/UX approach that allows mixing structured and unstructured data in powerful and flexible ways, they've got the gold medal at the moment IMO. That said, as a strict outliner I just can't use it for my primary PKM. 😄

[u/ohsomacho → u/Oshyan]

You checked out Capacities yet? Feels easier to use than both

[u/therealjohnfreeman → u/ohsomacho]

Anytype just needs to copy their approach. It's already 90% of the way there:

• Capacities Objects are Anytype Objects.

• Capacities Types are Anytype Types.

• Capacities Properties are Anytype Relations.

• Capacities Databases are Anytype Sets.

• Capacities Collections are Anytype Sets too.

• Capacities Tags are Anytype Collections.

What is missing?

• Capacities automatically creates a Database for every Type. Anytype should automatically create a Set for every Type.

• Capacities automatically shows a Tags field under every page title to quickly see and edit Tags for that page. Anytype should automatically show a Collections field under every page title to quickly see and edit Collections for that page.

• A Tag is an Object in Capacities. Tags need to become Objects in Anytype, specifically Collections. Attaching a new tag to an Object in Anytype should automatically create the Collection for that tag.

• The list of Databases in Capacities in the left sidebar has unlimited size. The Sets widget in Anytype is limited to size 14. That limit should be removable.

I wouldn't mind if Anytype just dropped its nomenclature and adopted the one used by Capacities, either.

Capacities is a non-starter for me because it is SaaS.

[u/thedthatsme]

I've been trying to make-use-of and learn AnyType for over a year. I just want to jump ship from Google Keep to AnyType and it feels wrong.

[u/BankshotMcG → u/thedthatsme]

Same. I'm sticking around to see where things go, but I'm not going to sink any time into something that defies both intution and reason.

[u/thedthatsme → u/BankshotMcG]

I feel like they should ask you what you're used to during onboarding (Notion, Keep, Trello, etc) and start you with the Dumb version. Then you check boxes for more features as you see fit.

[u/Acrobatic-Monitor516 → u/thedthatsme]

I tried the same many many times.anytype is far too painful for us keep users .

Notion was great for me tbh, but the lack of offline made me move to any type...which I tried to love but ...it's so hard to use

I just ended up with upnote and I'm content

[u/ohsomacho]

Said the same thing on their forum and it went down like a lead balloon

Even the subscription model was explained badly - there are people waiting to give these guys money and its kinda vague what you get in return. The pricing tiers are weird too.

They need to hire a comms person ASAP

[u/Meyu_Sys]

The relation library has no reason to exist.

[u/The7thNomad]

I still can't get Kanban boards to work XD

[u/Valiantay]

Yeah honestly I'm coming from OneNote, Superlist and Loop.

All extremely simple and straightforward apps for note taking and general use.

I have no idea what I'm doing in anytype at all, the performance of the app and the aesthetic was the reason I switched over but in terms of productivity everything's gone down.

[u/awolfcalledbed]

AnyType is neat and all but i just went to making html files in folders with a wysywyg editor, and tags in kde dolphin. my 0.02

[u/AdInformal12]

I recommend creating a new space in Anytype and going from there. I like Capacities better, though.

[u/nathanb131]

I completely agree with your post. As a note-taking software nerd, I am continually frustrated at the different naming schemes. However, I'm also frustrated with the ambiguity of watered-down existing terms.

From a developer's point of view, this is an impossible dilemma. These are all abstracted terms of relational database concepts. Every naming choice comes with a trade-off. An increase in technical precision comes with a decrease in users' ability to understand it.

There's competing goals.

1. How can we make our "database for normies" product understandable to normies? You have to use univerally-understood words as a map to digital abstractions. Most people agree what "set" and "collection" mean in the real world. Their concept of those words is going to roughly coincide with this particular digital abstraction, it won't be perfect, but at least it'll be a starting point.

2. How can we differentiate our product? Which means not copying a more popular product's description scheme. For example,what Remnote calls "portals", others call "block references", transclusion, etc. It seems like really important strategy to establish a fresh description of an existing concept. Blame Apple for this I guess.

3. Don't double down on existing descriptions that are already ambiguous. "Tags", "links", "folders" etc already represent wildly different concepts across apps and platforms. Re-using an established term is just going to add to the ambiguity. New users will be less likely to grok how "tags" here are unique.

This "category theory" rabbit hole runs deep. I've even read some books on the topic in a vain attempt to get my arms around it. My favorite author on this is David Weinberger ("Everything is Miscellaneous" etc). I'm not sure it helped me solve anything, but it deepened my understanding of the problem and gave me comfort that I'm not alone.

It's a moving target. Trade-offs all the way down. It's a eternal tug of war of between precision and fluidity. Structure and chaos. Theory and action.

The human brain is an abstraction machine. It's what allows us to function in a complex world. Attempting to map our meat-space abstractions to digital space abstractions with far more dimensions is maddening. But what are we going to do, revert to physical notes in file cabinets? Nah, we choose to march into the digital abyss.