I thought every Relation automatically had a "reverse relation"

I thought every Relation automatically had a “reverse relation” but it seems not.

For example, I have a topic called Advanced Macroeconomics, which is written by David Romer, so I thought there would be a “reverse relationship” under David Romer, he wrote a book called Advanced Macroeconomics.

Maybe the program can’t automatically determine the logical relationship between “author” and “wrote”, so it can’t name it automatically.

I think it could prompt me to name the relationship.

However, it doesn’t.

This is a bit disappointing to me.

It would be too tedious for me to have to handle each “relation” twice manually.


To get something like this done, there has to be an object for the book and and object for the author. In the books object you then use a relation like “author” and choose the authors object. This way the two objects would be connected.

Do you want having the objects and relations created for you, just by typing “David wrote a book called Advanced Macroeconomics”?

In my experience with Notion, if I create a book Advanced Macroeconomics for David in one of its databases called Person, it will have an option of “show it in the Book database or not”.(① in the figure)

I can define the relation name Author(②) and Wrote(③), it will be shown in the mini map with the same word I used(④ and ⑤)


Do you mean you expect the backlink to show?

This would “solve” the issue you mentioned, as you’d have the relationship mentioned in the other object without need to explicitly write the name of the mirror relation. In your example, the author page would have a section called “relations that link here” and it would show the book having that person as author.

Perhaps one interesting feature request would be ability to rename a mirror relation. So in Homer’s page Lisa shows as daughter, but in Lisa’s page Homer shows as father. (in your example, it’s simpler - could be author in both cases…).


Yes, it is the same feature I mean. But unfortunately, it is also just a “request”, too. :rofl:

Yes, that will be great.


Hello everyone :nerd_face: This issue one of our top priority stuff, but it is blocked by architecture refactoring we are doing in the moment. Hopefully you will see an mvp of this feature in several releases