Discussion Forum > Are you happy with SuperFocus?
<<really unsatisfactory with>>
Whenever I'm spending too much time on productivity stuff, as a risk-free replacement for creative projects, my end result is always "... really unsatisfactory with...". Always! After reading Mark's Dreams book, and getting real with myself i.e. Not needing/using productivity systems to accomplish most of my meaningful projects/milestones, I stopped using any list-oriented system and/or tool.
Whenever I'm spending too much time on productivity stuff, as a risk-free replacement for creative projects, my end result is always "... really unsatisfactory with...". Always! After reading Mark's Dreams book, and getting real with myself i.e. Not needing/using productivity systems to accomplish most of my meaningful projects/milestones, I stopped using any list-oriented system and/or tool.
May 25, 2011 at 23:49 |
avrum
avrum
I really do not have an opinion on SF since I never used it. Generally I stopped developing and thinking about TM systems after I realized that by folowing two of my earlier rules I got about as productive as I needed to be. So now I just write in one spiral notebook everything I need to do and notes and file everything in a simple a to z filing system. As long as I review my notebook often I am fine. My mind tells me what I need to do next. Gerry
May 26, 2011 at 0:58 |
Gerry
Gerry
I am still finding that SFv3 is the single best organizational tool I have ever used, not only for the way it contains and filters my stuff, but also for the way it has helped me troubleshoot my commitments, processes, etc. There are so many self-management metrics embedded in that list that jump out at me during a thoughtful scan!
Having said that, I will admit that it is not perfect, and I do experience ups and downs with it, much the same ups and downs that you all are reporting. I've tinkered with it as much as anyone, and I fully agree that it not "complete" in the sense of needing an accompanying calendar, reminder system, etc. I guess what really works for me is that my time troubleshooting or tweaking SF is rarely wasted. SF is so lightweight and low on overhead that my SuperFocus problems are at least as much about me as they are about SuperFocus—and likewise for the time I sink into troubleshooting—so I just don't feel that sense of "wasting time on the system" that we have all felt with other systems.
Though I am currently working through the _Dreams_ book and feeling a lot of success with it so far, I don't see SF fading from my view. Even if _Dreams_ takes me to a state of perpetual Pull, in which I never need to write down an important goal-related task ever again, I will still need to remember that I wanted to call so-and-so about the thingy before he goes out of town, and I will want to be reminded to oil the hinges on my daughter's door at a time other than when I am opening it to kiss her goodnight, and I certainly hope always to have "discretionary time" at my disposal ... so there will always be a very nice niche for SuperFocus.
Having said that, I will admit that it is not perfect, and I do experience ups and downs with it, much the same ups and downs that you all are reporting. I've tinkered with it as much as anyone, and I fully agree that it not "complete" in the sense of needing an accompanying calendar, reminder system, etc. I guess what really works for me is that my time troubleshooting or tweaking SF is rarely wasted. SF is so lightweight and low on overhead that my SuperFocus problems are at least as much about me as they are about SuperFocus—and likewise for the time I sink into troubleshooting—so I just don't feel that sense of "wasting time on the system" that we have all felt with other systems.
Though I am currently working through the _Dreams_ book and feeling a lot of success with it so far, I don't see SF fading from my view. Even if _Dreams_ takes me to a state of perpetual Pull, in which I never need to write down an important goal-related task ever again, I will still need to remember that I wanted to call so-and-so about the thingy before he goes out of town, and I will want to be reminded to oil the hinges on my daughter's door at a time other than when I am opening it to kiss her goodnight, and I certainly hope always to have "discretionary time" at my disposal ... so there will always be a very nice niche for SuperFocus.
May 26, 2011 at 3:23 |
Bernie
Bernie
Alan, I think the rules of SF state that if nothing on a page is ready to be done, then the page is dismissed. I know from experiences that, at least for me, this tends to come and go in bouts, that is, I have weeks where I am very productive, actioning and finishing lots of things from the list, alternated by days where I mostly dismiss pages. I think that's an essential part of the system. I don't really like days where I am mostly dismissing, but after that, I'm left with a list that's again fun and challenging to work from.
May 26, 2011 at 11:41 |
Nicole
Nicole
I'm very very happy wtih SuperFocus. I have tried all of Mark's systems as they have come out, beginning with AF1. SF is the only one that I've been able to stick with consistently for any length of time. I'm going on four months now of consistently using my SF notebook daily.
What I love about it is that it accommodates all sorts of different situations. In my home notebook, it usually takes me a week or more to cycle through all of the pages. With my work notebook, I'm cycling once every couple of days on a normal week. But I don't ever feel like I have to "start over" or incur overhead to "catch up" with the system--I can always open to the current page and either write down the 4-5 things I have to do right then in C2 or search for something forgotten in C1 that fits my current energy & motivation level.
I've been using the standard Moleskine ruled notebook with 30 lines, and find that's just the right size for me. There's something I also love about just holding that notebook and carrying it around . . .
What I love about it is that it accommodates all sorts of different situations. In my home notebook, it usually takes me a week or more to cycle through all of the pages. With my work notebook, I'm cycling once every couple of days on a normal week. But I don't ever feel like I have to "start over" or incur overhead to "catch up" with the system--I can always open to the current page and either write down the 4-5 things I have to do right then in C2 or search for something forgotten in C1 that fits my current energy & motivation level.
I've been using the standard Moleskine ruled notebook with 30 lines, and find that's just the right size for me. There's something I also love about just holding that notebook and carrying it around . . .
May 26, 2011 at 13:18 |
Jeff N
Jeff N
avrum wrote:
<<Whenever I'm spending too much time on productivity stuff, as a risk-free replacement for creative projects, my end result is always "... really unsatisfactory with...". Always! After reading Mark's Dreams book, and getting real with myself i.e. Not needing/using productivity systems to accomplish most of my meaningful projects/milestones, I stopped using any list-oriented system and/or tool. >>
I agree with what I thought you said. I thought you said that whenever you get stuck, it's because you're too wound up in minute meaningless [less meaningful] activities as presented by the system, and are not spending enough time on the wonderful stuff.
I'm not sure if that's fully your intention. I agree that too much drudgework is a bad thing, and that getting bored this way is a big impediment to satisfaction with a system. I admit that may be part of my trouble here.
I don't agree that dropping systems is either necessary or helpful in pursuing creative work. For some it may be. For me, as with Bernie, the system is a vital framework for keeping balance between what I want to do and what I need to do.
For now, SF is demanding I think about my work in patterns that are decidedly uncomfortable and thus I'm rebelling against using it - but I'm not rebelling against work, just working without the system. Which causes (as above) an imbalance between wants and needs.
So the solution is to change the system to match how I want to think. Optimism says that the new adaptation won't inflict the same problem as SF currently inflicts on me. Experience suggests eventually it will, and another change will be in order.
<<Whenever I'm spending too much time on productivity stuff, as a risk-free replacement for creative projects, my end result is always "... really unsatisfactory with...". Always! After reading Mark's Dreams book, and getting real with myself i.e. Not needing/using productivity systems to accomplish most of my meaningful projects/milestones, I stopped using any list-oriented system and/or tool. >>
I agree with what I thought you said. I thought you said that whenever you get stuck, it's because you're too wound up in minute meaningless [less meaningful] activities as presented by the system, and are not spending enough time on the wonderful stuff.
I'm not sure if that's fully your intention. I agree that too much drudgework is a bad thing, and that getting bored this way is a big impediment to satisfaction with a system. I admit that may be part of my trouble here.
I don't agree that dropping systems is either necessary or helpful in pursuing creative work. For some it may be. For me, as with Bernie, the system is a vital framework for keeping balance between what I want to do and what I need to do.
For now, SF is demanding I think about my work in patterns that are decidedly uncomfortable and thus I'm rebelling against using it - but I'm not rebelling against work, just working without the system. Which causes (as above) an imbalance between wants and needs.
So the solution is to change the system to match how I want to think. Optimism says that the new adaptation won't inflict the same problem as SF currently inflicts on me. Experience suggests eventually it will, and another change will be in order.
May 26, 2011 at 20:31 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan, the most recent time I got stuck with SF (a few weeks ago, I think), I discovered that precisely *none* of the "wonderful stuff" was on my SF list at all! Some had migrated to other parking places (like the "today list" we've discussed), where they were vaguely worded or otherwise very un-compelling, and some had entirely disappeared as a goal had shifted and I continued to put off rethinking it.
Rather than tinker more with the rules or the reminder systems (as I was wont to do), what I needed was simply to write these important things on the list. "Simply," I said, yet when I attempted to do it, I discovered that I hadn't clarified these things as much as I imagined ... not even enough to write them down! Then the real work began. Again.
Rather than tinker more with the rules or the reminder systems (as I was wont to do), what I needed was simply to write these important things on the list. "Simply," I said, yet when I attempted to do it, I discovered that I hadn't clarified these things as much as I imagined ... not even enough to write them down! Then the real work began. Again.
May 26, 2011 at 21:48 |
Bernie
Bernie
<<I don't agree that dropping systems is either necessary or helpful in pursuing creative work>>
I agree - for some this may be the case. However I'm 2 - 3 weeks in without a system (though I'm doing the Dreams exercises on a daily basis, as well as re-reading the PDF), and I'm knee-deep in creative projects. Though trusting pull vs push does raise my anxiety.
I agree - for some this may be the case. However I'm 2 - 3 weeks in without a system (though I'm doing the Dreams exercises on a daily basis, as well as re-reading the PDF), and I'm knee-deep in creative projects. Though trusting pull vs push does raise my anxiety.
May 26, 2011 at 22:01 |
avrum
avrum
I see what you're saying Bernie. It's not my case though, the important stuff is in there. I'm just unsatisfied by the balance of how they are presented.
May 27, 2011 at 2:15 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
> ARE YOU HAPPY WITH SUPERFOCUS?
Mainly YES. From every system I tried this one is the best for me.
Hovever there is a little inconvenient. It is exhausting. With this system I am alway rushing and I spend my time reporting my stuff.
I made a little experiment. I Put on a sheet the numbers of tasks and subject I was really involved in. There was about 15. In SF they were spared amoung 6 A4 pages. I must adfmit I dissmiss a lot. I must admit most of the thing I take on note are not useful at all.
SO yes SF is great but sometime the system drives me nut.
Mainly YES. From every system I tried this one is the best for me.
Hovever there is a little inconvenient. It is exhausting. With this system I am alway rushing and I spend my time reporting my stuff.
I made a little experiment. I Put on a sheet the numbers of tasks and subject I was really involved in. There was about 15. In SF they were spared amoung 6 A4 pages. I must adfmit I dissmiss a lot. I must admit most of the thing I take on note are not useful at all.
SO yes SF is great but sometime the system drives me nut.
May 27, 2011 at 11:54 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
+JMJ+
> "Are you happy with SuperFocus?"
Not really...well, not as how it is now.
A few months back I tried using it but somehow it didn't fit me, I abandoned it after just around a week of using it then went to using Gerry's USGTM.
However, the concept of SF intrigued me still; besides, one of the main reasons for my not using it was that it needed too big a notebook for my own needs (I had been using a 3x5 memo notebook), so when I read Mark's latest variation for SFv3 I thought of a theoretical system of emulating it but in a one-column format instead of SFv3's two. I posted an outline of it here,
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1478460#item1485672
After posting the above, I couldn't resist the temptation of trying it out, so I rapidly thought of rules for it to be practical, and the next day I started using it.
It has been more than two weeks since then, and I am still using it. I am quite surprised by its compactness (I am still using the 3x5 fliptop spiral bound notebook from before, and I have no problems using it) and its power (I have excellent control of my tasks, no matter if they are new, recurrent, urgent, unfinished, or parts of a project/context. Yes, it can handle PROJECTS and CONTEXTS! No need for separate lists for simple projects, errands, work vs. home related tasks, microgoals, and the like, it can handle them all in one list). And yet, comparing my experience of my use of SFv3, this variation of SF is actually easier to use and has less resistance. In fact, I can confidently say it would give SFv3 a run for its money when it comes to getting everything done ^___^
I will post it around two weeks from now, which is one month from when I started using this, to iron out the kinks (if any).
So to answer the question, no, I am not happy with SF as it is, but I am happy that it gave me an idea for this SF variation.
God bless.
> "Are you happy with SuperFocus?"
Not really...well, not as how it is now.
A few months back I tried using it but somehow it didn't fit me, I abandoned it after just around a week of using it then went to using Gerry's USGTM.
However, the concept of SF intrigued me still; besides, one of the main reasons for my not using it was that it needed too big a notebook for my own needs (I had been using a 3x5 memo notebook), so when I read Mark's latest variation for SFv3 I thought of a theoretical system of emulating it but in a one-column format instead of SFv3's two. I posted an outline of it here,
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1478460#item1485672
After posting the above, I couldn't resist the temptation of trying it out, so I rapidly thought of rules for it to be practical, and the next day I started using it.
It has been more than two weeks since then, and I am still using it. I am quite surprised by its compactness (I am still using the 3x5 fliptop spiral bound notebook from before, and I have no problems using it) and its power (I have excellent control of my tasks, no matter if they are new, recurrent, urgent, unfinished, or parts of a project/context. Yes, it can handle PROJECTS and CONTEXTS! No need for separate lists for simple projects, errands, work vs. home related tasks, microgoals, and the like, it can handle them all in one list). And yet, comparing my experience of my use of SFv3, this variation of SF is actually easier to use and has less resistance. In fact, I can confidently say it would give SFv3 a run for its money when it comes to getting everything done ^___^
I will post it around two weeks from now, which is one month from when I started using this, to iron out the kinks (if any).
So to answer the question, no, I am not happy with SF as it is, but I am happy that it gave me an idea for this SF variation.
God bless.
May 27, 2011 at 17:17 |
nuntym
nuntym
That sounds remarkably like what I'm looking at nuntym. We'll see in 2 weeks how similar our approaches are.
May 27, 2011 at 18:22 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
+JMJ+
Alan > "That sounds remarkably like what I'm looking at nuntym. We'll see in 2 weeks how similar our approaches are."
Wow, I am excited! :D
Anyways, I think one main reason SF creates resistance over time is how it solved AF1's weakness in handling urgent tasks. We all know (at least, those who have used AF1) that AF1's greatest strength is its compiling of tasks into a series of closed lists, and yet to solve AF1's weakness SF compromised AF1's strength: SF became a series of semi-closed lists, and we all know semi-closed things are by definition OPEN things. That is, SF became a series of open lists.
And yet there IS a system that can handle urgent tasks remarkably well: AF2. The problem with AF2 is that it is very poor at handling the large number non-urgent tasks inevitably become. I can distinctly remember the complaining of people in these forums (including myself, although I didn't post my complaints :p) of the stress of trying to reach the beginning of the list, since the adding up of tasks makes this more and more difficult.
AF3 was an attempt to combine the strengths of both AF1 and AF2, but it failed. In hindsight, AF3 had shortcomings because it didn't handle AF2 very well: AF3 still gave non-urgent items for AF2 to consider, when it should have let AF2 handle urgent items ONLY.
Eventually, AF2 was forgotten. AndreasE's Ping Pong AF was an attempt to revise AF3, but it dropped AF2 altogether and advocated using AF1 processing of the last two to three pages when handling urgent tasks. I thought it was better than AF3, but for some reason it didn't feel right when I was using it, so I gave it up. Now in hindsight again, maybe it was because AF1 was not meant to be used in handling urgent tasks.
Nevertheless, AF2 IS powerful; in his review of systems Mark specifically mentions AF2's power in handling urgent tasks...but ONLY in handling urgent tasks. And AF1 is powerful in handling non urgent tasks...but ONLY in handling non-urgent tasks. Therefore, theoretically, if a task management system could incorporate AF1 and AF2, but ALWAYS let AF1 handle non-urgent tasks ONLY, and ALWAYS let AF2 handle urgent tasks ONLY, then it would be one powerful system indeed.
Now, when I first presented the theory of my system to this forum a couple of weeks ago, none of the previous discussion was in my mind, but ever since I have started using it, I found its power to be solely because it is the most excellent blend of AF1 and AF2 conceivably possible: it handles non urgent tasks with AF1 ONLY, and urgent tasks with AF2 ONLY. There is no compromise whatsoever in its use of AF1 and AF2.
And I am happy.
God bless.
Alan > "That sounds remarkably like what I'm looking at nuntym. We'll see in 2 weeks how similar our approaches are."
Wow, I am excited! :D
Anyways, I think one main reason SF creates resistance over time is how it solved AF1's weakness in handling urgent tasks. We all know (at least, those who have used AF1) that AF1's greatest strength is its compiling of tasks into a series of closed lists, and yet to solve AF1's weakness SF compromised AF1's strength: SF became a series of semi-closed lists, and we all know semi-closed things are by definition OPEN things. That is, SF became a series of open lists.
And yet there IS a system that can handle urgent tasks remarkably well: AF2. The problem with AF2 is that it is very poor at handling the large number non-urgent tasks inevitably become. I can distinctly remember the complaining of people in these forums (including myself, although I didn't post my complaints :p) of the stress of trying to reach the beginning of the list, since the adding up of tasks makes this more and more difficult.
AF3 was an attempt to combine the strengths of both AF1 and AF2, but it failed. In hindsight, AF3 had shortcomings because it didn't handle AF2 very well: AF3 still gave non-urgent items for AF2 to consider, when it should have let AF2 handle urgent items ONLY.
Eventually, AF2 was forgotten. AndreasE's Ping Pong AF was an attempt to revise AF3, but it dropped AF2 altogether and advocated using AF1 processing of the last two to three pages when handling urgent tasks. I thought it was better than AF3, but for some reason it didn't feel right when I was using it, so I gave it up. Now in hindsight again, maybe it was because AF1 was not meant to be used in handling urgent tasks.
Nevertheless, AF2 IS powerful; in his review of systems Mark specifically mentions AF2's power in handling urgent tasks...but ONLY in handling urgent tasks. And AF1 is powerful in handling non urgent tasks...but ONLY in handling non-urgent tasks. Therefore, theoretically, if a task management system could incorporate AF1 and AF2, but ALWAYS let AF1 handle non-urgent tasks ONLY, and ALWAYS let AF2 handle urgent tasks ONLY, then it would be one powerful system indeed.
Now, when I first presented the theory of my system to this forum a couple of weeks ago, none of the previous discussion was in my mind, but ever since I have started using it, I found its power to be solely because it is the most excellent blend of AF1 and AF2 conceivably possible: it handles non urgent tasks with AF1 ONLY, and urgent tasks with AF2 ONLY. There is no compromise whatsoever in its use of AF1 and AF2.
And I am happy.
God bless.
May 27, 2011 at 19:31 |
nuntym
nuntym
Hi Nuntym
I would be very interested iif you have the possibility, to see a picture of your note book and the list how you organize it. I have the feeling that you have found something. I would give it a try but I did not realy still catched the method.
Good we
I would be very interested iif you have the possibility, to see a picture of your note book and the list how you organize it. I have the feeling that you have found something. I would give it a try but I did not realy still catched the method.
Good we
May 27, 2011 at 20:41 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
@Nuntyn I red quickly your post if I understand
you make only one column as on SF1 so you can put project and context and maybe deadlines
Urgent and un finished tasks goes on the next page
that's all
Am I right ?
you make only one column as on SF1 so you can put project and context and maybe deadlines
Urgent and un finished tasks goes on the next page
that's all
Am I right ?
May 27, 2011 at 20:48 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
+JMJ+
Jupiter > "I red quickly your post if I understand
you make only one column as on SF1 so you can put project and context and maybe deadlines
Urgent and un finished tasks goes on the next page
that's all
Am I right?"
Not exactly. I described it partially in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1478460#item1485672 You are right in that, like AF1, I place all tasks in one column. However, unfinished and urgent items are written at not necessarily the next page, but in the end of the list still like AF1, but this time with a mark in the beginning like a heavy dot. As you go on, unfinished/urgent tasks mix with non-urgent tasks. To mark the unfinished/urgent task furthest from the end of the list, place a double dot before the said task.
For example (sample list)
Non-urgent task
•• Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
• Urgent task
• Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
• Urgent task
• Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
• Urgent task
The system has two basic ways to process the list: Forward or AF1 mode has you processing each item of the list AF1-style. Backwards or AF2 mode has you processing ONLY ITEMS WITH THE HEAVY DOTS AF2-style.
As you can see, the system is actually more close to an AF3 revision than an SF one.
What I am trying to see right now is whether I got the dismissal and triggers to switch modes right.
God bless.
Jupiter > "I red quickly your post if I understand
you make only one column as on SF1 so you can put project and context and maybe deadlines
Urgent and un finished tasks goes on the next page
that's all
Am I right?"
Not exactly. I described it partially in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1478460#item1485672 You are right in that, like AF1, I place all tasks in one column. However, unfinished and urgent items are written at not necessarily the next page, but in the end of the list still like AF1, but this time with a mark in the beginning like a heavy dot. As you go on, unfinished/urgent tasks mix with non-urgent tasks. To mark the unfinished/urgent task furthest from the end of the list, place a double dot before the said task.
For example (sample list)
Non-urgent task
•• Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
• Urgent task
• Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
• Urgent task
• Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
• Urgent task
The system has two basic ways to process the list: Forward or AF1 mode has you processing each item of the list AF1-style. Backwards or AF2 mode has you processing ONLY ITEMS WITH THE HEAVY DOTS AF2-style.
As you can see, the system is actually more close to an AF3 revision than an SF one.
What I am trying to see right now is whether I got the dismissal and triggers to switch modes right.
God bless.
May 27, 2011 at 21:07 |
nuntym
nuntym
+JMJ+
Jupiter > "Hi Nuntym
I would be very interested iif you have the possibility, to see a picture of your note book and the list how you organize it. I have the feeling that you have found something. I would give it a try but I did not realy still catched the method. "
Oops, sorry I didn't read this one before I posted earlier. But anyways, I am still not confident with the dismissal and triggers yet, which is the reason why I wanted to publish the whole system two weeks from now.
But anyways if you want to try it, no biggie ^___^ I have to warn you, there are FOUR possible ways to process the list. The two I had described before are the basic, essential ways. The other two are still experimental, are based on AF2, and I am still not comfortable with posting them; I'll post them later. However, these two additional processes are the ones that make the system able to handle projects and contexts.
I really do not have time to type clearly the whole thing, but here are the procedures as they stand:
1) Make a list like AF1 in a notebook 25-35 lines per page, with one item per line. You also need two (2) bookmarks. Post-It clear tabs are probably the best
2) If you are going to write an urgent or unfinished task (hereon called C2 items, since these are the items we usually put in Column 2 of SF), write the task on the end of the list
with a heavy dot (•) preceding the items itself. Double dot it (••) if it is C2 item furthest from the end of the list. If anytime you acted on a C2 item with a double dot and was crossed out, add another dot to the next C2 item to make it double-dotted.
3) AF1/Forward mode
3.1) Always put one of the bookmarks on the current page of the list (the page where you are currently working on AF1 mode). Move it when you have to work on the next page.
3.2) Work on the list AF1 style on ALL ITEMS with this modification: If you are on a page with C2 items, you must finish these items before going to the next page or before the current page can be dismissed. You can, however, go to AF2 mode even if there are still C2 items in the current page.
3.3) AF1 dismissal still remains with the modification in 3.2 and with this: If you return to the current page from AF2 mode, with respect to dismissal, treat the page as if you have just gone into it. For example, you have done two items at page 9 on AF1 mode when you went to AF2 mode. After AF2 mode, you return to page 9. If there is no C2 item in page 9, and if you do not act on any item, then page 9 is dismissed even though you have acted on items on it before.
4) AF2/Backwards mode
4.1) Always put the other bookmark at the page with the end of the list. Move when necessary.
4.2) You switch to AF2 mode whenever you need to. (NOTE: I am still a bit fuzzy with the trigger for changing to AF2 from AF1). Leave the first book bookmark at the current oage you left from AF1 mode.
4.3) Go to the bookmark at the end of the list and start using AF2 processing on C2 items only.
4.4) When you either acted at all of the available C2 items or reach a double dotted C2 item without acting on any, go back to AF1 mode.
4.5) AF2 mode has no dismissal process.
God bless.
Jupiter > "Hi Nuntym
I would be very interested iif you have the possibility, to see a picture of your note book and the list how you organize it. I have the feeling that you have found something. I would give it a try but I did not realy still catched the method. "
Oops, sorry I didn't read this one before I posted earlier. But anyways, I am still not confident with the dismissal and triggers yet, which is the reason why I wanted to publish the whole system two weeks from now.
But anyways if you want to try it, no biggie ^___^ I have to warn you, there are FOUR possible ways to process the list. The two I had described before are the basic, essential ways. The other two are still experimental, are based on AF2, and I am still not comfortable with posting them; I'll post them later. However, these two additional processes are the ones that make the system able to handle projects and contexts.
I really do not have time to type clearly the whole thing, but here are the procedures as they stand:
1) Make a list like AF1 in a notebook 25-35 lines per page, with one item per line. You also need two (2) bookmarks. Post-It clear tabs are probably the best
2) If you are going to write an urgent or unfinished task (hereon called C2 items, since these are the items we usually put in Column 2 of SF), write the task on the end of the list
with a heavy dot (•) preceding the items itself. Double dot it (••) if it is C2 item furthest from the end of the list. If anytime you acted on a C2 item with a double dot and was crossed out, add another dot to the next C2 item to make it double-dotted.
3) AF1/Forward mode
3.1) Always put one of the bookmarks on the current page of the list (the page where you are currently working on AF1 mode). Move it when you have to work on the next page.
3.2) Work on the list AF1 style on ALL ITEMS with this modification: If you are on a page with C2 items, you must finish these items before going to the next page or before the current page can be dismissed. You can, however, go to AF2 mode even if there are still C2 items in the current page.
3.3) AF1 dismissal still remains with the modification in 3.2 and with this: If you return to the current page from AF2 mode, with respect to dismissal, treat the page as if you have just gone into it. For example, you have done two items at page 9 on AF1 mode when you went to AF2 mode. After AF2 mode, you return to page 9. If there is no C2 item in page 9, and if you do not act on any item, then page 9 is dismissed even though you have acted on items on it before.
4) AF2/Backwards mode
4.1) Always put the other bookmark at the page with the end of the list. Move when necessary.
4.2) You switch to AF2 mode whenever you need to. (NOTE: I am still a bit fuzzy with the trigger for changing to AF2 from AF1). Leave the first book bookmark at the current oage you left from AF1 mode.
4.3) Go to the bookmark at the end of the list and start using AF2 processing on C2 items only.
4.4) When you either acted at all of the available C2 items or reach a double dotted C2 item without acting on any, go back to AF1 mode.
4.5) AF2 mode has no dismissal process.
God bless.
May 27, 2011 at 22:02 |
nuntym
nuntym
Thank you so much Nuntyn that's is a real explaination. I did not read your post when you wrote it so I miss MF this variation and test and of course yoour own variation. I can now Try it for next week. It gona be easy I only have 7 A4 pages, 5 dismissed, one near ready to be dismissed) and one left
I gona print your and test it and will report if you wish next week or before if I feel like.
I think double dot is indeed a very good idea.
Making only one columm, If I admit the C2 column principle is really clever,
I hate it using i2 column day by day. It makes me uncomfortable with the system. (But it made me understand many principle I did not caught before such as dismiss that I perfectly handle)
I gona print your and test it and will report if you wish next week or before if I feel like.
I think double dot is indeed a very good idea.
Making only one columm, If I admit the C2 column principle is really clever,
I hate it using i2 column day by day. It makes me uncomfortable with the system. (But it made me understand many principle I did not caught before such as dismiss that I perfectly handle)
May 28, 2011 at 6:07 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
+JMJ+
Jupiter, can you please send me an email? I think I need help in finalizing the system, I think it will be more efficient to correspond by email. My email is nuntym@gmail.com
God bless.
Jupiter, can you please send me an email? I think I need help in finalizing the system, I think it will be more efficient to correspond by email. My email is nuntym@gmail.com
God bless.
May 29, 2011 at 5:50 |
nuntym
nuntym
just did it !
May 29, 2011 at 18:38 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
I'm still happy with SuperFocus.
Lately I've been feeling very pressured by my lack of discretionary time, but SF is handling it pretty well -- more things get dismissed, so only the items that really need to be done stay on the list.
Lately I've been feeling very pressured by my lack of discretionary time, but SF is handling it pretty well -- more things get dismissed, so only the items that really need to be done stay on the list.
May 30, 2011 at 15:22 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan - Is your dis-satisfaction with SF connected with your other post where you announced you had "dismissed everything"?
May 30, 2011 at 15:24 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It may be connected. I'm not totally comfortable with how dismissed items get handled.
However, I also find I'm not satisfied with the form of pressure the system puts on me to work a certain way. Specifically it's bothersome to always do at least one new task and one bit each of the unfinished tasks. I crave more flexibility than that. Still get the same things done, but not necessarily in that alternating fashion.
However, I also find I'm not satisfied with the form of pressure the system puts on me to work a certain way. Specifically it's bothersome to always do at least one new task and one bit each of the unfinished tasks. I crave more flexibility than that. Still get the same things done, but not necessarily in that alternating fashion.
May 30, 2011 at 16:01 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Hi Nuntym :-)
I tried your variation with one column and promised to report. I do. It is a disaster with me. SF was much better even if C2 is really uncomfortable...
The result was procratrination, loose of concentration and creativity, loose of efficiency. Well I tried. Sorry Nuntyn !
Anyway things works for some and don't for others. Nevermind.
I thank you very much for the experienced which made me improove and realize my own organization.
I tried your variation with one column and promised to report. I do. It is a disaster with me. SF was much better even if C2 is really uncomfortable...
The result was procratrination, loose of concentration and creativity, loose of efficiency. Well I tried. Sorry Nuntyn !
Anyway things works for some and don't for others. Nevermind.
I thank you very much for the experienced which made me improove and realize my own organization.
May 31, 2011 at 10:08 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
+JMJ+
It's ok Jupiter! Maybe it's because I either haven't posted all of the procedures of the system and you weren't able to use its full power, or I was not clear with the instructions...or maybe it's a case to case basis, like you said, as I am getting more done with this system.
Another potential problem is that the system is still in flux: I changed how the different items are marked yesterday and I am trying it right now. This is the reason why I was reluctant to post the system, as it is still not fully complete. If the system is stable by then, in around a week or two I will post the whole system, and then let us see ^___^
But hey, thank you for your trying it, and I will consider your reactions to it as I finalize this system.
God bless.
It's ok Jupiter! Maybe it's because I either haven't posted all of the procedures of the system and you weren't able to use its full power, or I was not clear with the instructions...or maybe it's a case to case basis, like you said, as I am getting more done with this system.
Another potential problem is that the system is still in flux: I changed how the different items are marked yesterday and I am trying it right now. This is the reason why I was reluctant to post the system, as it is still not fully complete. If the system is stable by then, in around a week or two I will post the whole system, and then let us see ^___^
But hey, thank you for your trying it, and I will consider your reactions to it as I finalize this system.
God bless.
May 31, 2011 at 17:59 |
nuntym
nuntym
I have a suspicion that these things depend on the individual. A detailed system works because it suits how a person thinks and what a person does. Your system nuntym is becoming awesome for you, and in part it's because it's your system, you know how it holds together, and how to adapt it and refine it, because it's all yours. Jupiter also has his systems and adjusts them regularly. I do as well.
It takes ideas, tried, understood, and modified to suit your needs.
It takes ideas, tried, understood, and modified to suit your needs.
May 31, 2011 at 18:35 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Yeah I absolutly agree Alan.
May 31, 2011 at 20:28 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
I'm still quite happy with SF3... I haven't done stats in a while, so here they are.
I'm still working my electronic implementation in Toodledo with 25 "line" pages (folders). I have found that I like SFv3 the best - I like being able to demote C2 items back to C1 if they don't stand out. I still generally have one or two items that I'm dragging along from page to page in C2 (right now it's grading a final exam), interspersing working on those things with one-off tasks. I am most likely to demote something back to C1 if I work on it, reenter it on C2 of the next page and end up on that next page before I've had enough of a break from the ongoing task.
I'm getting more and more liberal with dismissal. When I dismiss a page I automatically add "review dismissed" to the list - which generally happens in the next 3 days or or so.
Anyway, here's what my list looks like at the moment:
Pages Closed or Dismissed since starting using SF: 58
Pages Open: 5
Individual Page Stats (total in column 1 is always 25): (open in column 1 / total in column 2 / open in column 2)
Page 58: 3/5/1
Page 59: 8/3/0
Page 60: dismissed
Page 61: 5/1/0
Page 62: 17/1/0
Page 63 (last page, 3 C1 items total): 2/0/0
I'm still working my electronic implementation in Toodledo with 25 "line" pages (folders). I have found that I like SFv3 the best - I like being able to demote C2 items back to C1 if they don't stand out. I still generally have one or two items that I'm dragging along from page to page in C2 (right now it's grading a final exam), interspersing working on those things with one-off tasks. I am most likely to demote something back to C1 if I work on it, reenter it on C2 of the next page and end up on that next page before I've had enough of a break from the ongoing task.
I'm getting more and more liberal with dismissal. When I dismiss a page I automatically add "review dismissed" to the list - which generally happens in the next 3 days or or so.
Anyway, here's what my list looks like at the moment:
Pages Closed or Dismissed since starting using SF: 58
Pages Open: 5
Individual Page Stats (total in column 1 is always 25): (open in column 1 / total in column 2 / open in column 2)
Page 58: 3/5/1
Page 59: 8/3/0
Page 60: dismissed
Page 61: 5/1/0
Page 62: 17/1/0
Page 63 (last page, 3 C1 items total): 2/0/0
June 2, 2011 at 3:28 |
Sarah
Sarah
nuntym :
I will send you a email when I move to the next page :-) (It's not a urgent task!)
I will send you a email when I move to the next page :-) (It's not a urgent task!)
June 2, 2011 at 15:38 |
IL
IL
Me, I've found the last 2 weeks have been really unsatisfactory with SF. Basically I'm frustrated by looking at pages and finding nothing that's both worthy and ready. I think in part it's because pages are too short to have enough Options. But when I had long pages it took too long to get through them and back to my main C2s.
I'm thinking to take what I learned from SF3 (lots) and integrate improvements into My System.
What's everyone else feeling about SF3?