Discussion Forum > Common Sense vs Chaos
Okay I just realized that this implies that the dismissal rules have to be tweaked as well... so it's not "just a flag tweak"... But it might be interesting to experiment with it
March 3, 2011 at 0:49 |
Daouda
Daouda
Daouda,
Maybe I am wrong, but the early posts along with the statement that there were 1200 things on a list seemed to imply overwhelm and a breakdown, which I just assumed were due to too much to get done. So I assumed something was not working well. Apologies if I had the problem wrong.
Gerry
Maybe I am wrong, but the early posts along with the statement that there were 1200 things on a list seemed to imply overwhelm and a breakdown, which I just assumed were due to too much to get done. So I assumed something was not working well. Apologies if I had the problem wrong.
Gerry
March 3, 2011 at 0:57 |
Gerry
Gerry
David Drake -
<<< Sorry, Seraphim. I was not trying to be sarcastic. >>>
I didn't take your comments that way!!! I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
<<< Sorry, Seraphim. I was not trying to be sarcastic. >>>
I didn't take your comments that way!!! I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
March 3, 2011 at 1:00 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Gerry wrote:
<<< Not to be argumentative, but if you do not reduce your commitments the only way you get more work done is to work faster. >>>
Agreed!!
<<< Again I am not sure a system can make you work faster >>>
Sure it can. There are lots of ways that AF and DWM and now SF have helped me work MUCH faster:
+ Stay focused and "in the zone" -- my work is far more effective and productive when I'm working this way, rather than scattered and muddled and super-multi-tasking
+ What can I eliminate? The dismissal process allows me to focus on things that really matter NOW
+ Think more deeply and clearly about my work -- For example, what can I delegate? Delegation can really multiply one's productivity - getting double or triple the results I can get by myself, or even more. The AF systems have really helped me with this.
I'd bet you get some of these benefits from your own systems as well.
<<< Not to be argumentative, but if you do not reduce your commitments the only way you get more work done is to work faster. >>>
Agreed!!
<<< Again I am not sure a system can make you work faster >>>
Sure it can. There are lots of ways that AF and DWM and now SF have helped me work MUCH faster:
+ Stay focused and "in the zone" -- my work is far more effective and productive when I'm working this way, rather than scattered and muddled and super-multi-tasking
+ What can I eliminate? The dismissal process allows me to focus on things that really matter NOW
+ Think more deeply and clearly about my work -- For example, what can I delegate? Delegation can really multiply one's productivity - getting double or triple the results I can get by myself, or even more. The AF systems have really helped me with this.
I'd bet you get some of these benefits from your own systems as well.
March 3, 2011 at 1:07 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi Erik,
<<<I hope this post will be taken in the spirit it is written, I honestly want to give helpful insight. If you feel badgered in any way, please let me know. >>>
I am truly thankful for everyone's posts here, even if I disagree with some of them! I don't feel badgered at all. I'm sorry if I've given any other impression!
I do think it's funny that everyone seems to think having a large number of tasks is such a horrible problem. But like Mark once said, if I didn't have a lots of things to do, I'd be terribly bored. I LIKE doing meaningful work. And thank God, so much of my work really feels meaningful to me. I also feel very thankful to have such a variety of things to do.
<<< The answer is obviously to cycle faster and there are not many solutions. >>>
Yes, I agree the answer is to cycle faster. So far (today), putting urgent things on Next Page C2 has helped a bit. Time will tell if it makes any significant difference.
<<< Also, I'm sorry to say that I still believe you should dismiss the entire page if you didn't work on a C1 item even if you have stricken multiple from having done them earlier. >>>
Maybe you're right. I have entered this as a task on my list, and if it stands out, I'll give your dismissal rule a try.
<<< No matter what happens, you'll have to drop stuff >>>
Why? I don't necessarily come to that conclusion. My goal is equilibrium, not necessarily a smaller list.
<<< Which is the best of these 2 evils?
1 - Going through the list quickly <snip>
2 - Pulling stuff forward, not cycling through the list fast enough <snip> >>>
Clearly the first is best (though I don't see any "evils" there).
<<<I hope this post will be taken in the spirit it is written, I honestly want to give helpful insight. If you feel badgered in any way, please let me know. >>>
I am truly thankful for everyone's posts here, even if I disagree with some of them! I don't feel badgered at all. I'm sorry if I've given any other impression!
I do think it's funny that everyone seems to think having a large number of tasks is such a horrible problem. But like Mark once said, if I didn't have a lots of things to do, I'd be terribly bored. I LIKE doing meaningful work. And thank God, so much of my work really feels meaningful to me. I also feel very thankful to have such a variety of things to do.
<<< The answer is obviously to cycle faster and there are not many solutions. >>>
Yes, I agree the answer is to cycle faster. So far (today), putting urgent things on Next Page C2 has helped a bit. Time will tell if it makes any significant difference.
<<< Also, I'm sorry to say that I still believe you should dismiss the entire page if you didn't work on a C1 item even if you have stricken multiple from having done them earlier. >>>
Maybe you're right. I have entered this as a task on my list, and if it stands out, I'll give your dismissal rule a try.
<<< No matter what happens, you'll have to drop stuff >>>
Why? I don't necessarily come to that conclusion. My goal is equilibrium, not necessarily a smaller list.
<<< Which is the best of these 2 evils?
1 - Going through the list quickly <snip>
2 - Pulling stuff forward, not cycling through the list fast enough <snip> >>>
Clearly the first is best (though I don't see any "evils" there).
March 3, 2011 at 1:34 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Dear Attorney Daouda,
Thanks for all the moral support! (I hope your fees aren't too high!)
Sorry I didn't respond to your "flagged tasks" post. I remember when Matt posted that. It just seemed like another layer of complexity to me.
Some questions -
1. Why 25 flags? Why not 10? Why not 100?
2. What to do with urgent tasks that arise, if I still have some flagged items left?
3. What to do if I can't get through all the flagged tasks? What if that becomes a chronic problem?
Anyway, questions like that prevented me from trying it.
Thanks for all the moral support! (I hope your fees aren't too high!)
Sorry I didn't respond to your "flagged tasks" post. I remember when Matt posted that. It just seemed like another layer of complexity to me.
Some questions -
1. Why 25 flags? Why not 10? Why not 100?
2. What to do with urgent tasks that arise, if I still have some flagged items left?
3. What to do if I can't get through all the flagged tasks? What if that becomes a chronic problem?
Anyway, questions like that prevented me from trying it.
March 3, 2011 at 1:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim, great to see how you are taking the advice people give. Not everybody can be as open minded as you :)
As for the "no-evil" thing, it was a figure of speech as well as a wink in the sense that there is no evil there. But after thinking about it, there is the fact that one needs to control some urges,... maybe.
As for the "no-evil" thing, it was a figure of speech as well as a wink in the sense that there is no evil there. But after thinking about it, there is the fact that one needs to control some urges,... maybe.
March 3, 2011 at 2:06 |
Erik
Erik
Crazy thought here: if the blunt time-based dismissal of DWM was working so well for you (to prevent your ever expanding list problem), couldn't you apply a similar rule to dismiss the oldest pages of SF3?
I'm in the habit (for many, many years now) to always date an empty page when I start writing on it, be it for taking notes or even scribbles. I still do that in SF3 when I start a new page, although purely for information purposes.
It'd be trivial to simply dismiss pages older than a month when picking up the list first thing in the morning.
Just an idea… ;-)
I'm in the habit (for many, many years now) to always date an empty page when I start writing on it, be it for taking notes or even scribbles. I still do that in SF3 when I start a new page, although purely for information purposes.
It'd be trivial to simply dismiss pages older than a month when picking up the list first thing in the morning.
Just an idea… ;-)
March 3, 2011 at 2:35 |
Hugo Ferreira
Hugo Ferreira
Seraphim, congratulations on launching what must be the most popular debate ever on this site! 50+ posts in hours! I'm equally amazed to see such spirited discussion without the negativity. Why isn't the rest of the net like that :-(. On with the discussion!
You just agreed with Erik that it's best to move faster through the list. Then you wrote:
[<<< No matter what happens, you'll have to drop stuff >>>
Why? I don't necessarily come to that conclusion. My goal is equilibrium, not necessarily a smaller list.]
In short, it's because a smaller list is got through faster. A longer list is slower, and not just doubly slow. You have more pages to pass through, AND the length pushes more things into the urgent category, slowing you down and reinforcing the problem.
In other words, a long list strains the system. I think Mark indicated early on that the amount of stuff in C2 (crossed out) tends to correlate with the number of pages in your list.
Or maybe I got that wrong.
Besides the above, I'm coming to the opinion that next-page urgent is the right rule, and that now-urgent doesn't merit a spot in the list unless it's big enough to merit setting aside unfinished after your initial attention.
You just agreed with Erik that it's best to move faster through the list. Then you wrote:
[<<< No matter what happens, you'll have to drop stuff >>>
Why? I don't necessarily come to that conclusion. My goal is equilibrium, not necessarily a smaller list.]
In short, it's because a smaller list is got through faster. A longer list is slower, and not just doubly slow. You have more pages to pass through, AND the length pushes more things into the urgent category, slowing you down and reinforcing the problem.
In other words, a long list strains the system. I think Mark indicated early on that the amount of stuff in C2 (crossed out) tends to correlate with the number of pages in your list.
Or maybe I got that wrong.
Besides the above, I'm coming to the opinion that next-page urgent is the right rule, and that now-urgent doesn't merit a spot in the list unless it's big enough to merit setting aside unfinished after your initial attention.
March 3, 2011 at 3:06 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I feel as Alan on the debate/positiveness thing :)
As for the urgent going on next page, from the first time I heard of it, I made it mine. It tests the small possibility that I thought it was urgent and in reality, it wasn't. If it was, I'll move to the next page pretty quick. If it wasn't, then I won't have lost time over it at that moment. The next time similar task pops up, I'm sure to put it in C1 from the start.
As for the urgent going on next page, from the first time I heard of it, I made it mine. It tests the small possibility that I thought it was urgent and in reality, it wasn't. If it was, I'll move to the next page pretty quick. If it wasn't, then I won't have lost time over it at that moment. The next time similar task pops up, I'm sure to put it in C1 from the start.
March 3, 2011 at 4:39 |
Erik
Erik
Hugo Ferreira wrote:
<<< Crazy thought here: if the blunt time-based dismissal of DWM was working so well for you (to prevent your ever expanding list problem), couldn't you apply a similar rule to dismiss the oldest pages of SF3? >>>
Yes, I always date my pages too. My oldest SFv3 page is dated 2/7/11. I suppose I could try dismissing anything older than 1 month. I'll add it to Outlook as a reminder in case adding urgent items to C2 on next page doesn't speed things up enough. (I don't want to try too many modifications at the same time!!)
Thanks for the idea!
<<< Crazy thought here: if the blunt time-based dismissal of DWM was working so well for you (to prevent your ever expanding list problem), couldn't you apply a similar rule to dismiss the oldest pages of SF3? >>>
Yes, I always date my pages too. My oldest SFv3 page is dated 2/7/11. I suppose I could try dismissing anything older than 1 month. I'll add it to Outlook as a reminder in case adding urgent items to C2 on next page doesn't speed things up enough. (I don't want to try too many modifications at the same time!!)
Thanks for the idea!
March 3, 2011 at 4:45 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
You wrote:
> Sorry I didn't respond to your "flagged tasks" post. I remember
> when Matt posted that. It just seemed like another layer
> of complexity to me.
>
> Some questions -
>
> 1. Why 25 flags? Why not 10? Why not 100?
>
> 2. What to do with urgent tasks that arise, if I still have
> some flagged items left?
>
> 3. What to do if I can't get through all the flagged tasks?
> What if that becomes a chronic problem?
>
> Anyway, questions like that prevented me from trying it.
I just posted a revised method in a thread entitled, "SF3 Alternative." Perhaps it answers some of your questions. Have a look.
Matt
You wrote:
> Sorry I didn't respond to your "flagged tasks" post. I remember
> when Matt posted that. It just seemed like another layer
> of complexity to me.
>
> Some questions -
>
> 1. Why 25 flags? Why not 10? Why not 100?
>
> 2. What to do with urgent tasks that arise, if I still have
> some flagged items left?
>
> 3. What to do if I can't get through all the flagged tasks?
> What if that becomes a chronic problem?
>
> Anyway, questions like that prevented me from trying it.
I just posted a revised method in a thread entitled, "SF3 Alternative." Perhaps it answers some of your questions. Have a look.
Matt
March 3, 2011 at 4:49 |
2mc
2mc
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<<< a smaller list is got through faster. A longer list is slower, and not just doubly slow. You have more pages to pass through, AND the length pushes more things into the urgent category, slowing you down and reinforcing the problem. >>>
Good point. Let's see how small it gets with putting urgent on next page C2.
After 1 month of usage, my original AF1 list had about 500 open tasks, if I remember correctly, which eventually grew to over 1200 (and was still growing). DWM was actually higher than that, leveling off at around 1600 active tasks after a few months of consistent use.
Currently I have 23 active pages and 244 open tasks in my SFv3 list. I'll try to track this and see what happens. Until today, the page count kept growing and growing. Today I moved through 4 pages and added only 1 - generally it's closer to the opposite - so this is good progress. But moving through pages isn't enough -- real progress would be when the active page count starts to level off, or actually decrease.
<<< a smaller list is got through faster. A longer list is slower, and not just doubly slow. You have more pages to pass through, AND the length pushes more things into the urgent category, slowing you down and reinforcing the problem. >>>
Good point. Let's see how small it gets with putting urgent on next page C2.
After 1 month of usage, my original AF1 list had about 500 open tasks, if I remember correctly, which eventually grew to over 1200 (and was still growing). DWM was actually higher than that, leveling off at around 1600 active tasks after a few months of consistent use.
Currently I have 23 active pages and 244 open tasks in my SFv3 list. I'll try to track this and see what happens. Until today, the page count kept growing and growing. Today I moved through 4 pages and added only 1 - generally it's closer to the opposite - so this is good progress. But moving through pages isn't enough -- real progress would be when the active page count starts to level off, or actually decrease.
March 3, 2011 at 5:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<<< .... now-urgent doesn't merit a spot in the list unless it's big enough to merit setting aside unfinished after your initial attention. >>>
Could you restate that in English please? LOL It sounds like there's a great idea hiding in there but I have no idea what it is. :-)
<<< .... now-urgent doesn't merit a spot in the list unless it's big enough to merit setting aside unfinished after your initial attention. >>>
Could you restate that in English please? LOL It sounds like there's a great idea hiding in there but I have no idea what it is. :-)
March 3, 2011 at 5:05 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
2mc wrote:
<<< I just posted a revised method in a thread entitled, "SF3 Alternative." >>>
Good to see you back Matt! I will take a look.
<<< I just posted a revised method in a thread entitled, "SF3 Alternative." >>>
Good to see you back Matt! I will take a look.
March 3, 2011 at 5:06 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<<< congratulations on launching what must be the most popular debate ever on this site! 50+ posts in hours! >>>
Ah, you must not have been here yet when the original AF was launched! "There were giants in the earth in those days..."
<<< I'm equally amazed to see such spirited discussion without the negativity. Why isn't the rest of the net like that :-(. >>>
I think it says a lot about its owner and moderator (Mark Forster of course!). The tone of discussion boards is set by the owner/moderator. The longer I've been on this forum the more I believe that to be true. Many people have come and gone, but the positive tone has remained very consistent and drawn additional people who appreciate it. There are little flare-ups now and then but overall it's a very positive, very helpful, very interesting board.
<<< congratulations on launching what must be the most popular debate ever on this site! 50+ posts in hours! >>>
Ah, you must not have been here yet when the original AF was launched! "There were giants in the earth in those days..."
<<< I'm equally amazed to see such spirited discussion without the negativity. Why isn't the rest of the net like that :-(. >>>
I think it says a lot about its owner and moderator (Mark Forster of course!). The tone of discussion boards is set by the owner/moderator. The longer I've been on this forum the more I believe that to be true. Many people have come and gone, but the positive tone has remained very consistent and drawn additional people who appreciate it. There are little flare-ups now and then but overall it's a very positive, very helpful, very interesting board.
March 3, 2011 at 5:13 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<<< .... now-urgent doesn't merit a spot in the list unless it's big enough to merit setting aside unfinished after your initial attention. >>>
Example:
"honey, take the garbage out!" "I will dear!". Depending on family dynamic, you now write as urgent on the next page. It gets done within the hour.
The next week, "honey, the garbage truck is coming down the road!" you immediately run to the door, grab garbage, and bring to curb. Returning to AF, you write nothing.
Week 3. "honey, the garbage is on fire!". You grab the fire extinguisher and kill the fire. Emergency passed, you could immediately finish the job by cleaning up on the spot. Instead, returning to the list, you write next page, "clean up garbage". This was the now-urgent big enough to set aside unfinished.
Example:
"honey, take the garbage out!" "I will dear!". Depending on family dynamic, you now write as urgent on the next page. It gets done within the hour.
The next week, "honey, the garbage truck is coming down the road!" you immediately run to the door, grab garbage, and bring to curb. Returning to AF, you write nothing.
Week 3. "honey, the garbage is on fire!". You grab the fire extinguisher and kill the fire. Emergency passed, you could immediately finish the job by cleaning up on the spot. Instead, returning to the list, you write next page, "clean up garbage". This was the now-urgent big enough to set aside unfinished.
March 3, 2011 at 5:54 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim,
If DWM was working fine with 1600 tasks, how is it a problem that SF is still expanding with less than 250?
What DOES seem to be a problem is that you aren't getting through the list every day. So things which Mark would put in C1 as "later today" need to go in C2, slowing down the system. If this then means that you are invoking common sense rules all the time, I can understand your concern. As you have found, dismissal helps.
If you have an 8 hour working day (HA!!) of which half is taken up by meetings, that gives you about 25 ten minute bursts of action. Or 15 ten minute bursts and 50 two minute bursts. Or... (the parameters will be different for everyone, of course). So it's just a matter of arithmetic as to how many pages you can handle and, therefore, where you need to set your dismissal level. Just keeping your parameters in mind may help.
I am really writing this for myself, as I can feel myself following you to the same situation. I didn't get through my list yesterday.
If DWM was working fine with 1600 tasks, how is it a problem that SF is still expanding with less than 250?
What DOES seem to be a problem is that you aren't getting through the list every day. So things which Mark would put in C1 as "later today" need to go in C2, slowing down the system. If this then means that you are invoking common sense rules all the time, I can understand your concern. As you have found, dismissal helps.
If you have an 8 hour working day (HA!!) of which half is taken up by meetings, that gives you about 25 ten minute bursts of action. Or 15 ten minute bursts and 50 two minute bursts. Or... (the parameters will be different for everyone, of course). So it's just a matter of arithmetic as to how many pages you can handle and, therefore, where you need to set your dismissal level. Just keeping your parameters in mind may help.
I am really writing this for myself, as I can feel myself following you to the same situation. I didn't get through my list yesterday.
March 3, 2011 at 7:59 |
Will
Will
Seraphim.
I was speaking literally about how fast one does a task. So if I need to write a report and it takes one hour, if I can do it in 30 minutes, I can then do something else. So in my mind a system can not make us work faster. For me I want my system to make sure I do not forget things (my notebook) which is generally bad for business and make things easy to find so I don't waste time hunting for them (A-Z filing system). I do not expect it to review my commitments, prioritize or dismiss thing.
Gerry
I was speaking literally about how fast one does a task. So if I need to write a report and it takes one hour, if I can do it in 30 minutes, I can then do something else. So in my mind a system can not make us work faster. For me I want my system to make sure I do not forget things (my notebook) which is generally bad for business and make things easy to find so I don't waste time hunting for them (A-Z filing system). I do not expect it to review my commitments, prioritize or dismiss thing.
Gerry
March 3, 2011 at 16:01 |
Gerry
Gerry
Urrk: seem to have lost the paragraph that I thought was interesting...
Seraphim,
You mention you often find yourself doing a few C1s in between C2s. Is this after some have stood out on their own merits on the first pass, before you looked at the C2s? On coming to a new page, I know that the first task should be either a C1 task or dismissal of all C1 tasks, before I even look at C2. But often I look at the C2s as well. I'm thinking of making a point of covering the C2s on the first pass.
This should help move the "someday maybes" through dismissal more quickly.
Gerry,
I guess we Superfocus users have rather different expectations!.
Seraphim,
You mention you often find yourself doing a few C1s in between C2s. Is this after some have stood out on their own merits on the first pass, before you looked at the C2s? On coming to a new page, I know that the first task should be either a C1 task or dismissal of all C1 tasks, before I even look at C2. But often I look at the C2s as well. I'm thinking of making a point of covering the C2s on the first pass.
This should help move the "someday maybes" through dismissal more quickly.
Gerry,
I guess we Superfocus users have rather different expectations!.
March 3, 2011 at 17:50 |
Will
Will
Will,
I guess if something has Super in the name it better deliver LOL.
I guess if something has Super in the name it better deliver LOL.
March 3, 2011 at 18:21 |
Gerry
Gerry
Gerry,
:0D
:0D
March 3, 2011 at 20:36 |
Will
Will
Hi Seraphim,
although I sympathize (I'm having trouble getting through the list myself), I can't help thinking this problem should resolve itself when using the system a bit longer. You wrote that you often have to enter C2-tasks a few pages ahead, because at the next page(s) C2 is full. That means, once you manage to reach the end of the list and go back to the first page, you either have to do everything remaining in C1 (not a lot, you said, because you already did most on your first pass), or dismiss the lot. Either way, that's one page less, and this will happen for a lot of pages once you start again on the first page. And because your urgent C2-items will be entered further and further down the list (because your C2's are full :-), you're probably going to dismiss.
At least, that's how I hope it will work out in my case. I'm not processing more than 2 or 3 pages a day, which is too slow, but I hope that once I manage to speed things up (I'll try the suggestion to enter urgent C2-tasks on the next page instead of the current one!) dismissal will kick in.
I had a similar experience when I started to use AF1: initially I crawled through the list, but once I reached the point to dismiss pages, I happily dismissed page after page. I'm hoping it will work out similarly with SF3.
although I sympathize (I'm having trouble getting through the list myself), I can't help thinking this problem should resolve itself when using the system a bit longer. You wrote that you often have to enter C2-tasks a few pages ahead, because at the next page(s) C2 is full. That means, once you manage to reach the end of the list and go back to the first page, you either have to do everything remaining in C1 (not a lot, you said, because you already did most on your first pass), or dismiss the lot. Either way, that's one page less, and this will happen for a lot of pages once you start again on the first page. And because your urgent C2-items will be entered further and further down the list (because your C2's are full :-), you're probably going to dismiss.
At least, that's how I hope it will work out in my case. I'm not processing more than 2 or 3 pages a day, which is too slow, but I hope that once I manage to speed things up (I'll try the suggestion to enter urgent C2-tasks on the next page instead of the current one!) dismissal will kick in.
I had a similar experience when I started to use AF1: initially I crawled through the list, but once I reached the point to dismiss pages, I happily dismissed page after page. I'm hoping it will work out similarly with SF3.
March 3, 2011 at 22:31 |
Nicole
Nicole
@Will
<<You mention you often find yourself doing a few C1s in between C2s. Is this after some have stood out on their own merits on the first pass, before you looked at the C2s? On coming to a new page, I know that the first task should be either a C1 task or dismissal of all C1 tasks, before I even look at C2. But often I look at the C2s as well. I'm thinking of making a point of covering the C2s on the first pass.>>
I'm confused. When you say the first task "should" are you referring to Mark's rules or your own? If the former then:
I don't see anything in Mark's rules that impose an order-for-action between col 1 and col 2, merely restrictions on when one can move off the current/active page. (i.e. you must have actioned all the col 2 entries, and also you must either have actioned at least one col 1 entry or dismissed all unactioned col 1 entries - exemption from dismissal for the last page - provided it's col 1 is not full).
If my take on the SF3 rules is out of whack please will somebody correct me ;-)
Beauty sleep time.
John Angus
<<You mention you often find yourself doing a few C1s in between C2s. Is this after some have stood out on their own merits on the first pass, before you looked at the C2s? On coming to a new page, I know that the first task should be either a C1 task or dismissal of all C1 tasks, before I even look at C2. But often I look at the C2s as well. I'm thinking of making a point of covering the C2s on the first pass.>>
I'm confused. When you say the first task "should" are you referring to Mark's rules or your own? If the former then:
I don't see anything in Mark's rules that impose an order-for-action between col 1 and col 2, merely restrictions on when one can move off the current/active page. (i.e. you must have actioned all the col 2 entries, and also you must either have actioned at least one col 1 entry or dismissed all unactioned col 1 entries - exemption from dismissal for the last page - provided it's col 1 is not full).
If my take on the SF3 rules is out of whack please will somebody correct me ;-)
Beauty sleep time.
John Angus
March 3, 2011 at 22:34 |
John Angus (Anguish)
John Angus (Anguish)
Alan wrote:
<<< "honey, take the garbage out!" >>>
OK, that makes sense now!
<<< "honey, take the garbage out!" >>>
OK, that makes sense now!
March 4, 2011 at 1:30 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Will wrote:
<<< If DWM was working fine with 1600 tasks, how is it a problem that SF is still expanding with less than 250? >>>
Because I've seen this before with AF. I know that if I can't get that expansion under control, the system will eventually become totally unworkable. I want to get it under control NOW, while it still has a reasonable number of tasks.
<<< If you have an 8 hour working day (HA!!) of which half is taken up by meetings, that gives you about 25 ten minute bursts of action. Or 15 ten minute bursts and 50 two minute bursts. Or... (the parameters will be different for everyone, of course). So it's just a matter of arithmetic as to how many pages you can handle and, therefore, where you need to set your dismissal level. Just keeping your parameters in mind may help. >>>
Yes, this is why I find it helpful to keep some daily metrics - they help with diagnosis.
<<< If DWM was working fine with 1600 tasks, how is it a problem that SF is still expanding with less than 250? >>>
Because I've seen this before with AF. I know that if I can't get that expansion under control, the system will eventually become totally unworkable. I want to get it under control NOW, while it still has a reasonable number of tasks.
<<< If you have an 8 hour working day (HA!!) of which half is taken up by meetings, that gives you about 25 ten minute bursts of action. Or 15 ten minute bursts and 50 two minute bursts. Or... (the parameters will be different for everyone, of course). So it's just a matter of arithmetic as to how many pages you can handle and, therefore, where you need to set your dismissal level. Just keeping your parameters in mind may help. >>>
Yes, this is why I find it helpful to keep some daily metrics - they help with diagnosis.
March 4, 2011 at 1:34 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Gerry wrote:
<<< I do not expect it to review my commitments, prioritize or dismiss things. >>>
Then I suppose we have different expectations for our TM systems.
Thanks again - sincerely - for your sensible ideas!
<<< I do not expect it to review my commitments, prioritize or dismiss things. >>>
Then I suppose we have different expectations for our TM systems.
Thanks again - sincerely - for your sensible ideas!
March 4, 2011 at 1:37 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Will wrote:
<<< On coming to a new page, I know that the first task should be either a C1 task or dismissal of all C1 tasks, before I even look at C2. >>>
Where do you see that rule? I just double-checked and don't see that in the SF rules.
<<< You mention you often find yourself doing a few C1s in between C2s. Is this after some have stood out on their own merits on the first pass, before you looked at the C2s? >>>
Just for the sake of clarity, here is what I do when processing a new page (I think it's mostly just standard SF):
+ Write the date in the top margin (so I know when I visited a page)
+ Draw a line at the end of the list of C2 items (to emphasize that this is a "closed list" since I am testing the urgent-tasks-go-in-C2-next-page variant)
+ Read through the entire page (both columns) (crossing off all items that are already done and not counting these for the purpose of determining whether C1 tasks get dismissed - thanks Erik!)
+ Start back at the top of the C1 page, and start reading through the whole page (both C1 and C2), reading each item carefully, and taking action on whatever stands out. Sometimes none of the C1 items stand out at first -- meaning, the first thing that stands out happens to be in C2.
+ If I ever take action on anything in C1, then I put a checkmark next to today's date at the top of the page -- meaning this page is saved from dismissal.
+ When I come to the bottom of C2, I have to decide if I am DONE with the page or not:
+ If I took any action on any tasks in either column, then I am NOT DONE, and start cycling through the page again from top of C1.
+ If there are ANY items in C2, then I am NOT DONE, and must start cycling through the page again, from the top of C1.
+ If all the C2 tasks are crossed out, and I did not take any action on any items on the page on that pass, I am DONE. I then check whether I took action on anything in C1 during this visit to the page. If NO, then all C1 items are dismissed and the page is closed.
+ Then, I move on to the next page.
Does that answer your question? :-)
<<< On coming to a new page, I know that the first task should be either a C1 task or dismissal of all C1 tasks, before I even look at C2. >>>
Where do you see that rule? I just double-checked and don't see that in the SF rules.
<<< You mention you often find yourself doing a few C1s in between C2s. Is this after some have stood out on their own merits on the first pass, before you looked at the C2s? >>>
Just for the sake of clarity, here is what I do when processing a new page (I think it's mostly just standard SF):
+ Write the date in the top margin (so I know when I visited a page)
+ Draw a line at the end of the list of C2 items (to emphasize that this is a "closed list" since I am testing the urgent-tasks-go-in-C2-next-page variant)
+ Read through the entire page (both columns) (crossing off all items that are already done and not counting these for the purpose of determining whether C1 tasks get dismissed - thanks Erik!)
+ Start back at the top of the C1 page, and start reading through the whole page (both C1 and C2), reading each item carefully, and taking action on whatever stands out. Sometimes none of the C1 items stand out at first -- meaning, the first thing that stands out happens to be in C2.
+ If I ever take action on anything in C1, then I put a checkmark next to today's date at the top of the page -- meaning this page is saved from dismissal.
+ When I come to the bottom of C2, I have to decide if I am DONE with the page or not:
+ If I took any action on any tasks in either column, then I am NOT DONE, and start cycling through the page again from top of C1.
+ If there are ANY items in C2, then I am NOT DONE, and must start cycling through the page again, from the top of C1.
+ If all the C2 tasks are crossed out, and I did not take any action on any items on the page on that pass, I am DONE. I then check whether I took action on anything in C1 during this visit to the page. If NO, then all C1 items are dismissed and the page is closed.
+ Then, I move on to the next page.
Does that answer your question? :-)
March 4, 2011 at 1:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Nicole -
<<< I had a similar experience when I started to use AF1: initially I crawled through the list, but once I reached the point to dismiss pages, I happily dismissed page after page. I'm hoping it will work out similarly with SF3. >>>
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. Maybe you are right.
When I was using AF1, after awhile it got to the point where I was chasing the end of the list, day after day, week after week, never arriving there, never cycling back to the beginning of the list at all. New pages were always being added faster than I could process them. As a result, nothing ever got a chance to be dismissed.
Now, it is moving a little faster, and I think you are right, many of those full pages that are still sitting there in the earlier part of my list will get dismissed right away. I do think that will help. But my main fear is, if I can't get the list expansion under control, I'll end up chasing the end of the list like I did in AF1.
<<< I had a similar experience when I started to use AF1: initially I crawled through the list, but once I reached the point to dismiss pages, I happily dismissed page after page. I'm hoping it will work out similarly with SF3. >>>
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. Maybe you are right.
When I was using AF1, after awhile it got to the point where I was chasing the end of the list, day after day, week after week, never arriving there, never cycling back to the beginning of the list at all. New pages were always being added faster than I could process them. As a result, nothing ever got a chance to be dismissed.
Now, it is moving a little faster, and I think you are right, many of those full pages that are still sitting there in the earlier part of my list will get dismissed right away. I do think that will help. But my main fear is, if I can't get the list expansion under control, I'll end up chasing the end of the list like I did in AF1.
March 4, 2011 at 2:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I think it Might help if you tweak your inner Definition of standout to be slightly more stingy. You'll do a little less per page, and move forward a little faster. Eventually you'll reach that end :-)
March 4, 2011 at 2:42 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim,
Oops: I can't find it either. must be an earlier version of superfocus (or possibly the late version of me, approaching senility.)
I still think it would be an interesting tweak, but it's too early for tweaks.
THANK YOU for the daily check-off: I'm sure I've let a few pages live because, working on C2 I've lost track of whether I've done any C1s. (Spot the inconsistency here!)
Alan's point is spot on, of course.
Oops: I can't find it either. must be an earlier version of superfocus (or possibly the late version of me, approaching senility.)
I still think it would be an interesting tweak, but it's too early for tweaks.
THANK YOU for the daily check-off: I'm sure I've let a few pages live because, working on C2 I've lost track of whether I've done any C1s. (Spot the inconsistency here!)
Alan's point is spot on, of course.
March 4, 2011 at 6:39 |
Will
Will
Checkoff: I suppose this is why my habit is to usually start C1, so I don't forget to do 1.
March 4, 2011 at 12:23 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Very good habit Alan!
March 4, 2011 at 14:16 |
Erik
Erik
Seraphim, if you are endlessly chasing after the end of your list without ever reaching the end, you might go through it the other way round: starting at the end and progressing towards the beginning, from where you start again at the last open page. Then you get a chance for dismissing. In that case, the next C2 for unfinishe will be on the previous page.
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
March 4, 2011 at 15:10 |
wowi
wowi
wowi - Hmm! Interesting idea. I tend to get dizzy working lists backwards (I HATED AF2) but maybe I'll try this if the other simpler adjustments don't work out.
Alan - I suppose I could ask, "Does this REALLY stand out?" Or, "I mean REALLY REALLY stand out???" "Does this task jump off the page, waving its arms and DEMANDING to be done?" "Do I actually HEAR this task speaking to me???" LOL Maybe I'll try it. I could use a vacation. :-)
(You do have a good point, I am just having fun with it.) :-)
Alan - I suppose I could ask, "Does this REALLY stand out?" Or, "I mean REALLY REALLY stand out???" "Does this task jump off the page, waving its arms and DEMANDING to be done?" "Do I actually HEAR this task speaking to me???" LOL Maybe I'll try it. I could use a vacation. :-)
(You do have a good point, I am just having fun with it.) :-)
March 4, 2011 at 16:38 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan - <<< Checkoff: I suppose this is why my habit is to usually start C1, so I don't forget to do 1. >>>
I start with Column 1, too. That's not the problem, for me. The problem is that, since there are almost always 1-3 tasks that are already done when I come to a new page, and I simply cross them out, I have a hard time remembering exactly when the task got crossed off. Was it THIS visit, or a PREVIOUS visit? That's why I started using the checkoff.
I start with Column 1, too. That's not the problem, for me. The problem is that, since there are almost always 1-3 tasks that are already done when I come to a new page, and I simply cross them out, I have a hard time remembering exactly when the task got crossed off. Was it THIS visit, or a PREVIOUS visit? That's why I started using the checkoff.
March 4, 2011 at 16:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I hear you. For me, of course it was this visit because if I got to the end of C1 and didn't pick anything, I'd doublecheck and if I STILL don't pick anything, I immediately mark the page dismissed. Then I go to C2.
So if C1 isn't dismissed, I must have found something.
So if C1 isn't dismissed, I must have found something.
March 4, 2011 at 17:49 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan wrote:
<<< For me, of course it was this visit because if I got to the end of C1 and didn't pick anything, I'd doublecheck and if I STILL don't pick anything, I immediately mark the page dismissed. Then I go to C2. >>>
Of course you can do it that way if you like, but that's not how the rules are written. Dismissal doesn't occur till it's actually time to turn the page.
<<< For me, of course it was this visit because if I got to the end of C1 and didn't pick anything, I'd doublecheck and if I STILL don't pick anything, I immediately mark the page dismissed. Then I go to C2. >>>
Of course you can do it that way if you like, but that's not how the rules are written. Dismissal doesn't occur till it's actually time to turn the page.
March 4, 2011 at 19:30 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I like. It's not technically correct but it's practically the same, and easier for me.
March 4, 2011 at 21:24 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim,
Can I take it that talking to us is a C2 task for you? I am flattered. (And working off-list. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, etc.)
Can I take it that talking to us is a C2 task for you? I am flattered. (And working off-list. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, etc.)
March 5, 2011 at 15:41 |
Will
Will
Will - <<< Can I take it that talking to us is a C2 task for you? I am flattered. >>>
It always starts out as a C1 task. But then after a while I need a break from everything else, a mental break more than anything, and so I move it into C2 as an "urgent" task. That's usually what happens, anyway. :-)
<<< (And working off-list. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, etc.) >>>
For shame!!! LOL
It always starts out as a C1 task. But then after a while I need a break from everything else, a mental break more than anything, and so I move it into C2 as an "urgent" task. That's usually what happens, anyway. :-)
<<< (And working off-list. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, etc.) >>>
For shame!!! LOL
March 5, 2011 at 15:54 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<<It always starts out as a C1 task. But then after a while I need a break from everything else, a mental break more than anything, and so I move it into C2 as an "urgent" task. That's usually what happens, anyway. :-) >>
Moving stuff to urgent this way IS the reason you go slow through the system, don't do it. It goes to urgent not if you want to but if it HAS to be done. A better way would be to always put at least one of those breaks on each page in C1. You'll always have an escape from the drudgery.
Moving stuff to urgent this way IS the reason you go slow through the system, don't do it. It goes to urgent not if you want to but if it HAS to be done. A better way would be to always put at least one of those breaks on each page in C1. You'll always have an escape from the drudgery.
March 6, 2011 at 3:24 |
Erik
Erik
Erik:
<<A better way would be to always put at least one of those breaks on each page in C1. You'll always have an escape from the drudgery.>>
I've started to sort of do this. Not in any organized fashion, but I notice that I like C1 to have a variety of things...outdoor things...indoor things...cleaning things...project-y things...organizational thing...research-y things, etc.
This, however, leads to something I've typed and deleted a few times.
If I do task X and after doing it, I also do tasks Y and Z, but they are a page or two ahead in my system...and they're the type of thing that when it's done it gets re-entered, according to 'the letter of the law' am I supposed to cross these out and re-enter or not.
This is one way that I'm sort of doing what Erik suggests. I look at the page that Y and Z are on and I look at the last active page. I decide where I feel my system is better served with Y and Z living for the moment, and leave them or cross off or move them accordingly.
What do others think of this?
<<A better way would be to always put at least one of those breaks on each page in C1. You'll always have an escape from the drudgery.>>
I've started to sort of do this. Not in any organized fashion, but I notice that I like C1 to have a variety of things...outdoor things...indoor things...cleaning things...project-y things...organizational thing...research-y things, etc.
This, however, leads to something I've typed and deleted a few times.
If I do task X and after doing it, I also do tasks Y and Z, but they are a page or two ahead in my system...and they're the type of thing that when it's done it gets re-entered, according to 'the letter of the law' am I supposed to cross these out and re-enter or not.
This is one way that I'm sort of doing what Erik suggests. I look at the page that Y and Z are on and I look at the last active page. I decide where I feel my system is better served with Y and Z living for the moment, and leave them or cross off or move them accordingly.
What do others think of this?
March 6, 2011 at 4:01 |
malisa
malisa
I think Seraphim's approach is actually closer to the rules.
These are important questions.
These are important questions.
March 6, 2011 at 10:42 |
Will
Will
Melisa, I propose writing Xyz as one item instead of 3 separate. Then it becomes correct to continue one to the next.
March 6, 2011 at 17:32 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Erik wrote:
<<< Moving stuff to urgent this way IS the reason you go slow through the system, don't do it. It goes to urgent not if you want to but if it HAS to be done. >>>
I think we disagree on this one. "Urgent" is defined by the person who owns the list. :-) I like Mark's definition the best: "you want to get to it before you would in the normal processing of the list".
Yes, it probably makes the system go slower. But it's completely within the bounds of the rules, and a completely natural application of the rules. Rather than change the rules and their "feel", I'd prefer to find other ways to make the the system go faster. The whole reason I prefer SF over DWM is that sense of freedom and "working in the zone", which DWM doesn't preserve nearly as well.
<<< Moving stuff to urgent this way IS the reason you go slow through the system, don't do it. It goes to urgent not if you want to but if it HAS to be done. >>>
I think we disagree on this one. "Urgent" is defined by the person who owns the list. :-) I like Mark's definition the best: "you want to get to it before you would in the normal processing of the list".
Yes, it probably makes the system go slower. But it's completely within the bounds of the rules, and a completely natural application of the rules. Rather than change the rules and their "feel", I'd prefer to find other ways to make the the system go faster. The whole reason I prefer SF over DWM is that sense of freedom and "working in the zone", which DWM doesn't preserve nearly as well.
March 6, 2011 at 19:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Malisa wrote:
<<< If I do task X and after doing it, I also do tasks Y and Z, but they are a page or two ahead in my system...and they're the type of thing that when it's done it gets re-entered, according to 'the letter of the law' am I supposed to cross these out and re-enter or not. >>>
Malisa, can you give an example? It's hard for me envision what you're doing here.
<<< If I do task X and after doing it, I also do tasks Y and Z, but they are a page or two ahead in my system...and they're the type of thing that when it's done it gets re-entered, according to 'the letter of the law' am I supposed to cross these out and re-enter or not. >>>
Malisa, can you give an example? It's hard for me envision what you're doing here.
March 6, 2011 at 19:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
This is my home list. One example:
-Pick up yard (dogs)
-Remove honey locust trees (we have one big one but 'suckers' pop up all over and they have nasty thorns)
-Gather items in yard (we have a big yard that has been neglected and I want to pick up tools, sprinkler parts, broken bird feeders, etc.)
By entering these as single lines rather than something more big and overwhelming, I'm actually doing them. I could enter something more generic 'do some work in yard', but that hasn't worked in the past, so I don't want to do that. The dog-related task has to be done more regularly, but the others if I do them once a week or so, I'm okay. I don't want them on some other checklist because they'll get glossed over. This is working for me.
I did all three of these during the day yesterday when I hit 'pick up yard' on the list (got on a roll out there). The other two items were a page or two back. I got to those pages last night. I couldn't do the yard type stuff at night. I could have left them for the next cycle through. But that leaves old pages open longer with just an item or two on them (that was the case with one of them...crossing it out and moving it ahead allowed me to close a page).
I'll probably still do whatever common-sense tells me is right for me and my list at the particular time that something like this occurs, but I'm trying to make sure that I consider the consequences that I may not have thought of.
-Pick up yard (dogs)
-Remove honey locust trees (we have one big one but 'suckers' pop up all over and they have nasty thorns)
-Gather items in yard (we have a big yard that has been neglected and I want to pick up tools, sprinkler parts, broken bird feeders, etc.)
By entering these as single lines rather than something more big and overwhelming, I'm actually doing them. I could enter something more generic 'do some work in yard', but that hasn't worked in the past, so I don't want to do that. The dog-related task has to be done more regularly, but the others if I do them once a week or so, I'm okay. I don't want them on some other checklist because they'll get glossed over. This is working for me.
I did all three of these during the day yesterday when I hit 'pick up yard' on the list (got on a roll out there). The other two items were a page or two back. I got to those pages last night. I couldn't do the yard type stuff at night. I could have left them for the next cycle through. But that leaves old pages open longer with just an item or two on them (that was the case with one of them...crossing it out and moving it ahead allowed me to close a page).
I'll probably still do whatever common-sense tells me is right for me and my list at the particular time that something like this occurs, but I'm trying to make sure that I consider the consequences that I may not have thought of.
March 6, 2011 at 20:28 |
malisa
malisa
Malisa -
That's what I would do also. If I come to a page and it has a recurring item that I've already finished for one reason or another, I cross it out and re-enter at the end of the list (or wait till it gets triggered again by an Outlook reminder).
That's what I would do also. If I come to a page and it has a recurring item that I've already finished for one reason or another, I cross it out and re-enter at the end of the list (or wait till it gets triggered again by an Outlook reminder).
March 6, 2011 at 22:04 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@Gerry :
You wrote
<< if you do not reduce your commitments the only way you get more work done is to work faster. Again I am not sure a system can make you work faster especially if you are using a portion of your time to experiment. >>
Seraphim may correct me later, but dont recall he ever asked SF to help him get MORE work done. He just wants it to KEEP WORKING WELL following the rules ,while still throwing at it the same amount of stuff he used to throw at DWM without any problems. And he most definitely doesnt refuse to "reduce his commitments" since he observed that this is precisely what made DWM work so well for him through its timed dismissal process.
@Erik
<<If you are familiar with what's in your list, your intuition is affected and the standing out process helps you move faster through your list. If you are not familiar with what's in your list because it takes too much time to go through, then you put stuff that you remember being important in C2 acerbating your problem of being stuck on a page... The answer is obviously to cycle faster and there are not many solutions.>>
I wrote a post earlyer in this thread that nobody seem to have noticed :
Maybe the "flagged tasks" tweak that 2mc apllied to AF1 can be used with SF3 with the same benefits (and this could be most helpful to those whom have a very long list like Seraphim)
Here it is
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1357320
Relevant part :
<<Each morning, I review each page (in reverse order - from newest to oldest) and flag any task that stands out by my intuition. I flag the task by placing a see-through Post-It "Arrow" Flag on the task. These tags are great, because they can be easily repositioned and reused. I usually flag 25 items.
I circle through the Flagged tasks – beginning with the first page having a Flag – until I come to one my intuition tells me to do. I do it, remove the flag, place the tag on the inside cover of the notebook, date, strikethrough, and re-enter, if necessary. I then circle through the remaining Flagged tasks in like manner.
If I finish all 25 items, I circle through the entire notebook AF1 style.
>>