How Much Writing, Drawing, and Planning Belongs in a Journal?
If you are deciding how much of each to put in a journal, try three simple entry formats for two weeks and compare them with a small retrieval test. The aim is to find a repeatable mix that helps you record what matters and locate it later—not to fill every page or follow a fixed ratio. The experiment below is an editorial decision aid, not a published study or a promise of results.
Start with the job each format needs to do
Words work well when the meaning depends on detail: a conversation, an idea, or a sequence of events. A drawing can capture shape, layout, or a visual detail that would take longer to describe. A plan is useful when the next action, date, or reminder matters. These are practical distinctions for choosing a format, not claims that one type of entry is inherently better.
The official Bullet Journal guide describes “Rapid Logging” as a way to record tasks, events, and notes with short entries and symbols. That gives a useful model for keeping words concise and making actions visible, without requiring every journal entry to use the same layout (Bullet Journal: What Is Rapid Logging?). Oregon State University Extension’s nature-journaling guide explicitly allows observations to be written or drawn. That source is about nature, so applying the choice to a personal journal is an editorial adaptation; the practical point is to choose the form that preserves the detail you want to revisit.
Run a two-week experiment with three entry formats
Use one notebook or journal for all 14 days. Make one short entry per day about a real moment, idea, or upcoming task. Keep the subject and approximate entry length similar when you can; this makes it easier to compare formats. Do not spend time decorating or rewriting entries during the experiment.
Try these formats, rotating them so that each appears on different days of the week:
One possible schedule is to use words-led entries on days 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13; drawing-led entries on days 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14; and plan-led entries on days 3, 6, 9, and 12. This gives each format several tries across the two weeks. The schedule is an illustration, not a required research protocol. If a particular day’s task clearly calls for another format, use it and note the reason rather than forcing an awkward entry.
At the end of each entry, make two quick marks: easy to make? and likely to find later? Rate each from 1 (not really) to 5 (very). “Easy” means you could make the entry without much friction. “Find later” means you can imagine locating its useful detail when you need it. Keep the ratings separate: a page can be pleasant to create but hard to search, or easy to scan but too bare to make sense of later.
Use a simple retrieval test before choosing a mix
On day 14, choose three genuine questions about information you recorded—for example: “What was the book I meant to look up?”, “Which day did I plan to call Sam?”, or “What was the shape of the route I sketched?” Include one question for each format if possible. Do not reread the pages first. Give yourself up to two minutes per question to find the answer in the journal, then check whether the entry actually contains enough detail to answer it.
Record two outcomes for each question: whether you found the entry and how long it took. This is a practical test of finding information in the notebook, not a memory test or a measure of learning. The official Bullet Journal Index pairs topics with page numbers so entries can be found later. If a search fails, an index entry, clearer date, or short caption may help. A failed search may also show that the entry did not preserve the information you wanted; revise the entry format before drawing broader conclusions.
Worked example
Suppose your three questions are: “What did I want to ask at the next meeting?”, “What did I want to remember about the café?”, and “When did I plan to send the draft?” You find the meeting question in a words-led note in 35 seconds, recognize the café from a drawing caption in 20 seconds, and locate the send date in a plan-led list in 10 seconds. That small example suggests plans may be easiest for dated actions, while the caption makes the drawing searchable. It does not prove that these formats will work best for every topic; repeat the test with details that matter in your own routine.
Turn the results into a personal ratio
Look across the 14 entries, ratings, and retrieval results. Choose the format that felt easiest and still let you retrieve what mattered as your default. Keep a second format available for the situations it served better: words for context, drawings for visual details, or plans for dated actions. Use a mixed entry when two formats clearly solve different parts of the same task—for example, a small sketch with a one-line label and a single next step.
If an entry type was hard to retrieve, first try a small adjustment: add a date, a few identifying words, or a clear action marker. Then test that adjustment for another week. If drawings feel slow, make them smaller or simpler; if plans lack context, add one sentence; if prose takes too long to scan, begin with a label or date. These are practical adjustments derived from the experiment, not guarantees.
Your result does not need to become a fixed percentage. A workable “ratio” may be mostly words on a week full of reflections, mostly plans during a busy period, or a blend that changes from entry to entry. Choose the balance that fits the kinds of details you want to keep and can find again. The two-week test gives you a grounded starting point; a later check can show whether your needs have changed.