# Use case for having reverse links (additional column) in the same table **URL:** \ **Category:** Base design\ **Tags:** limits\ **Created:** [December 16, 2024, 2:11pm UTC](https://forum.seatable.com/t/use-case-for-having-reverse-links-additional-column-in-the-same-table/6067 "2024-12-16T14:11:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![abaer](https://forum.seatable.com/user_avatar/forum.seatable.com/abaer/32/4748_2.png) [@abaer](https://forum.seatable.com/u/abaer)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2024, 2:11pm UTC](https://forum.seatable.com/t/use-case-for-having-reverse-links-additional-column-in-the-same-table/6067/1 "2024-12-16T14:11:39Z")
Hi, I’d like to take up one issue from [a post a long time ago](https://forum.seatable.io/t/question-linking-with-in-the-same-table-number-of-linking-not-linked-records/1067), and make a strong (IMO) case for it. Fact is: While linking one table to another (A=\>B), the reverse link column (B=\>A) is always automagically created and maintained. I assume that’s how Seatable works internally anyway. As stated in my former post: Why does this not happen when a link column is linking to the same table. Expecially since a lot of new features (Org Chart and Hierarchy plugins) rely on table-internal links? But such general considerations apart, my actual use case should explain why this would be a game changer: We have a plain list of projects. A lot of them (\>1.000). They contain a link column which basically means “depends on”, linking each project to 1-n others which they need as a basis. Thus, we want to achieve a higher level of planning transparency: A single project may look unimportant if it is viewed separately. But is gains importance when we can see that n other projects depend on that one projects. These relationship are often overlooked. Here’s the catch: the **Definition** of the relationsship is done in the direction from the _depending_ project’s view: Every project manager knows which other projects he depends on. However, the important information lies in the other direction: **not “A depends on project B”** is interesting, but **“B is the basis for projects A, C, R, P, H, X”**. And in Seatable terms, that would be the reverse link within the same table. If I had this, I could do countlinks, rollups etc. We tried almost everything: - Asked project managers to create the reverse link manually. Won’t happen, or creates a lot of mistakes - Used scripts or n8n automations. They work, but need to be triggered, are not robust, and often do not update in real time - Used a very complicated, automation-based “create link” action with 12 help columns. Works, but messy and unreliable So here’s the question: If it’s already possible in table-to-table-links to create and maintain the opposite direction, what keeps you from implementing this in the same table? I guess that it’s a bit more difficult for the user to understand (erase one column, change the other one at the same time). but nevertheless … Thanks for listening, Arndt ---
**Author:** ![daniel.pan](https://forum.seatable.com/user_avatar/forum.seatable.com/daniel.pan/32/13_2.png) [@daniel.pan](https://forum.seatable.com/u/daniel.pan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2024, 2:17am UTC](https://forum.seatable.com/t/use-case-for-having-reverse-links-additional-column-in-the-same-table/6067/2 "2024-12-17T02:17:04Z")
> [@abaer](#): > > As stated in my former post: Why does this not happen when a link column is linking to the same table. Expecially since a lot of new features (Org Chart and Hierarchy plugins) rely on table-internal links? Self-linking with two link columns (parent column and child column) will be added in version 5.2. Please give it a try when 5.2 is released and post your feedbacks. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.seatable.com/uploads/default/original/1X/04603423fe81a46c321283663086c475429e8ccb.png) [@system](https://forum.seatable.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2025, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.seatable.com/t/use-case-for-having-reverse-links-additional-column-in-the-same-table/6067/3 "2025-05-04T14:54:27Z")
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.