For New objects created in Set view, only add Relations that are explicitly filled in


Currently, a New object created in Set view will be populated with all the currently visible Relations. However often a Set displays Objects that do not share all of the same Relations, so it’s not desirable to add all of the Relations to any new object created.


Only add the Relations that the user explicitly defines (ie. types in).


Here I have a list of my projects, including paintings and sculptures. Only sculptures have the weight Relation though. However, adding a new Object here (Tower) forces it to have the weight Relation.

Edit: I just realized that in this case, since “Tower” is a sculpture, I do want the weight Relation :joy:. But this shouldnt be implied nor imposed by AT.


Another cool option would be to be able to Add a new Object based on a certain Object.
Maybe the Right-click menu for that Object can include the item “Create new Object base on this one”


Hey! I think your suggestion is great. Just one question on your suggested alternative. Would the existing “Duplicate Object” function do the thing you suggest?

Never used the Duplicate, but I assume it also copies the actual values for the Relations?

What I suggest is creating a new blank Object, with the same Relations, but all empty.

It does what it says on the tin: it creates an exact duplicate of the Object. It would be cool if it asks you whether you want to copy Relation values or just the structure which would be the intermediate between “Duplicate” and “Use as a Template” which creates a template which in turn can be used to create a new Object without the values (but that is quite some additional steps :stuck_out_tongue: ).

Hi @qualquertipo, thanks for the use case and feedback! In general we are working towards a model of ‘suggested’ relations rather than having them strictly bound to any particular Type.

In this case, one of the factors determining whether a suggested relation appears, would be if x relation had been added to any other Object of this Type. Like…if weight was added to sculpture, which is a Page, any other Page you create will have the suggestion to add ‘weight’.

I’m wondering, from a UX perspective, is it sufficient for you that ‘Weight’ as a relation would appear under ‘Suggested Relations’ rather than ‘In this Object’? And once having fulfilled this field, it jumps to ‘In this Object’? Any other touchpoints we might consider when designing this solution?

Yes, the suggested relations are a great feature!

I don’t think so… My thought is (and I might be wrong here!), if I’m on the Projects Set, which is defined simply by a filter for the tag #project, and choose to create a New entry, the only thing that this new entry should have for sure is to be tagged as a project.

Perhaps there could be three types of non-value cell indicators
Empty: Relation is included in the object, but empty
Faint plus: not included, but suggested
Faint dash: not included

Regardless, clicking on the cell allows filling in the value (which also of course automatically adds the Relation, if needed).

I don’t want to need to remember what relations should/shouldn’t be in each type of object. Depending on ATs algorithm to decide might lead to unwanted results…