Best Way to Use AREAS in Anytype

Total Newb here on day 2 …
After looking at the differences between Sets and Collections, it seems to me it’s best to create an “area” with a new object as a Collection. Yes, No? Pros and Cons?
Thanks in advance

1 Like

:bulb:Basic Idea incoming…

  • Sets = queries all objects that meet a specific query (all objects of a certain type or with a certain relationship).

  • Collection = set but you decide what goes in or does not go in it.

Collections are going to be more intuitive for most people and are similar to how other knowledge management/note taking tools function.

Sets are good if you want everything of a certain type or relation to be in it (best for custom types) and for using multiple views to filter and sort objects of that type or relation.

1 Like

Thanks for you time and answer

1 Like

Is this about areas form GTD and similar?

I actually wouldn’t recommend anyone to use collections, for the time being, if they plan adding a lot of stuff to those collections. The only way to currently add something to a collection, besides creating an object from the collection itself, is to use the link to command from the object menu. That’s going to involve a lot more work compared to just creating a relation to act as your areas, and then using sets to filter the relation.

1 Like

Here’s the problem…

For me, when I was taking notes in previous versions, I had to use sets (because collections didn’t exist). In order to link objects to the set (and then use that as a filter) I had to add a custom relation by object that was limited to sets to my custom object (“unit”) which I called “course.” Then you have to filter each individual set on the basis of this relation, link any current units in the relation panel to the set that they belong in, and then it was only reasonable to create new “units” from the parent set because they automatically assumed the relation that was being filtered for. Otherwise, if you create just a blank object using the “+” button, you have to add it to the relation. Simply speaking, it wasn’t the easiest to set up and definitely not the most intuitive way of doing things.

Enter collections, there is no longer a need create custom relations, filter sets, so on and so forth. Simply speaking, you either create an object in the collection or link it to the collection - tada - no need for extra configurations because it works as described above simply out-of-the-box. It’s linked to the collection and it’s easier to add freshly created objects to the collection. Collections are, personally, a lot more similar to “parent pages” of subpages in Notion or notebooks in platforms such as Evernote, OneNote, or Notesnook. I find it easier to wrap my head around using collections than sets and custom relations because it’s much more simpler. In my opinion, it’s more work to use sets than it is to use collections (which is why I plan to primarily use collections in the future).


Are objects inside a Collection supposed to be linked on the graph?
Cause they appear as orphans (unlinked objects)…
Is it a bug or is it that way by design? I guess that’s not the case for Sets tho, right?

They are supposed to be linked in Collections.

1 Like

It’s a bug then, they’re already inside the collection and appear unlinked!

It was bugged previously. Not sure if it was fixed already. You might wanna check Slack.

1 Like