Discussion Forum > Very Busy
Three suggestions:
1) Think systems. http://www.markforster.net/blog/2006/10/4/more-about-systems.html
2) Audit everything you do. http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/2/29/auditing-your-time-management.html
3) Identify what only you can do. http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/4/14/action-versus-activity.html
1) Think systems. http://www.markforster.net/blog/2006/10/4/more-about-systems.html
2) Audit everything you do. http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/2/29/auditing-your-time-management.html
3) Identify what only you can do. http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/4/14/action-versus-activity.html
October 29, 2011 at 0:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
And here I imagined I read most of your thoughts! I've followed those links and noted 9 webpages that need reading. I'll be back!
October 29, 2011 at 14:40 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
October 30, 2011 at 0:08 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan,
For a laugh, maybe, check out http://zenhabits.net/silly-busy/ – fortunately a guest post, i.e. *not* written by Leo.
For a laugh, maybe, check out http://zenhabits.net/silly-busy/ – fortunately a guest post, i.e. *not* written by Leo.
October 31, 2011 at 17:54 |
ubi
ubi
ubi:
Interesting post. Only 40 hours work a week - hardly qualifies as busy.
I noticed that one of her problems was volunteering and one of her solutions was to help someone.
I think she needs to think this out a bit more!
Interesting post. Only 40 hours work a week - hardly qualifies as busy.
I noticed that one of her problems was volunteering and one of her solutions was to help someone.
I think she needs to think this out a bit more!
October 31, 2011 at 19:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan -- I'm interested in your 'information declutterification.'
I've taken up the idea that information is either for action or reference. If it's for reference, then I need/want to store it somewhere. I've always had a "just in case" mentality in regards to squirreling away info, which of course leads to heaps of physical and digital detritus. When I've upgraded my PC systems and gone from, say, Info Select to some other system (usually Word or text files), I've found that I rarely needed any of the info I'd saved.
I bought Devon Think Pro when I entered grad school a few years ago, and while it's slick, I find myself just info-dumping into it. And I think I now have another info-pile that will be of little use to me.
I can adopt the "just in time" mentality when it's a focused project (ie, finding a new hot water heater), but it's harder when I find a specific Mark Forster blog post that I want to keep for my personal library on the off-chance I'll need it one day because it speaks to some technique or mode of thought or value that captured my attention. (And web sites do go away....though not for a long time, I hope!)
I've wondered about how to create a system of dismissal similar to DWM or Autofocus for old or no longer useful info. If I haven't opened or accessed the info in a year or so, then delete it?
It just struck me that the Noguchi system could work well for this -- frequently used info finds its way to the front of the file, unused info is sorted to the back and could probably safely be disposed of.
Sorry for the info-blather! But I do feel I've burdened myself unnecessarily with the care and feeding of too much information.
I've taken up the idea that information is either for action or reference. If it's for reference, then I need/want to store it somewhere. I've always had a "just in case" mentality in regards to squirreling away info, which of course leads to heaps of physical and digital detritus. When I've upgraded my PC systems and gone from, say, Info Select to some other system (usually Word or text files), I've found that I rarely needed any of the info I'd saved.
I bought Devon Think Pro when I entered grad school a few years ago, and while it's slick, I find myself just info-dumping into it. And I think I now have another info-pile that will be of little use to me.
I can adopt the "just in time" mentality when it's a focused project (ie, finding a new hot water heater), but it's harder when I find a specific Mark Forster blog post that I want to keep for my personal library on the off-chance I'll need it one day because it speaks to some technique or mode of thought or value that captured my attention. (And web sites do go away....though not for a long time, I hope!)
I've wondered about how to create a system of dismissal similar to DWM or Autofocus for old or no longer useful info. If I haven't opened or accessed the info in a year or so, then delete it?
It just struck me that the Noguchi system could work well for this -- frequently used info finds its way to the front of the file, unused info is sorted to the back and could probably safely be disposed of.
Sorry for the info-blather! But I do feel I've burdened myself unnecessarily with the care and feeding of too much information.
November 1, 2011 at 14:02 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Mike, yes, the Noguchi system makes a great "waterfall" decluttering scheme. I hoard a lot of info too, and my approach is to let it sit and go stale, until it becomes easy for me to dump it. Forcing myself to purge items after 6 months or so has proved futile, and my decisions are not very good. Boxing it up and waiting longer (a quite embarrassingly long time) makes it a snap. And it doesn't really take up that much space, in boxes. As long as one has a garage or basement or attic with a couple of spare corners—a couple of tall piles—I say the space can be reasonably sacrificed for the ease of purging.
November 1, 2011 at 15:19 |
Bernie
Bernie
"information is either for action or reference"
I've taken the hypothesis that all information exists to be used.
If there's no reason to use the information, it should be destroyed.
If it needs to be kept, there must be an answer to the question "how will it be used?"
Answer that, and you know how to organize that information.
My hypothesis, anyway. Not consistently practiced.
I've taken the hypothesis that all information exists to be used.
If there's no reason to use the information, it should be destroyed.
If it needs to be kept, there must be an answer to the question "how will it be used?"
Answer that, and you know how to organize that information.
My hypothesis, anyway. Not consistently practiced.
November 1, 2011 at 18:03 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
@Mike Brown re: "And web sites do go away"
You might try the bookmarking service, http://pinboard.in/ where you'll never lose a webpage. "Pinboard offers a bookmark archiving service for an annual fee of $25. The site will crawl and store a copy of every bookmark in your account... If the page you bookmarked goes offline, you'll still be able to see the archived copy indefinitely."
You might try the bookmarking service, http://pinboard.in/ where you'll never lose a webpage. "Pinboard offers a bookmark archiving service for an annual fee of $25. The site will crawl and store a copy of every bookmark in your account... If the page you bookmarked goes offline, you'll still be able to see the archived copy indefinitely."
November 1, 2011 at 19:43 |
Zane
Zane
Those pinboard folks are onto something... There are plenty of people like me who would start using it, bookmarking all kinds of thing with the intention of using it someday (but not really ever getting around to it), and never cancelling the $25 annual payment for fear that something "important" would be lost.
November 1, 2011 at 21:05 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Zane:
I think there's a free service that does much the same thing. Only I shall have to dive back into my old information (which fortunately I have _not_ weeded) in order to find it!
I think there's a free service that does much the same thing. Only I shall have to dive back into my old information (which fortunately I have _not_ weeded) in order to find it!
November 2, 2011 at 17:16 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Zane:
That didn't take long:
http://www.webcitation.org/
Sorry, to give you project #41, Seraphim!
And while you're about it, there's also http://citebite.com/ which allows you to quote a text and have the same text highlighted on the original.
That bit of information was five and a half years old, but I found it nearly instantly even though I haven't looked at it since.
http://pages.citebite.com/e1q1j8r7u7lal
That didn't take long:
http://www.webcitation.org/
Sorry, to give you project #41, Seraphim!
And while you're about it, there's also http://citebite.com/ which allows you to quote a text and have the same text highlighted on the original.
That bit of information was five and a half years old, but I found it nearly instantly even though I haven't looked at it since.
http://pages.citebite.com/e1q1j8r7u7lal
November 2, 2011 at 17:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'd never heard of webcitation.org before. Thanks, Mark!
Obviously, the key to my information storage problem is to simply ask Mark and let him find it :)
Obviously, the key to my information storage problem is to simply ask Mark and let him find it :)
November 2, 2011 at 18:17 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
In my opinion there is no point at all in weeding electronic storage since to all intents and purposes the capacity nowadays is infinite.
The essential thing is be able to find it again if and when you want it. Indexing and tagging make this very easy.
The essential thing is be able to find it again if and when you want it. Indexing and tagging make this very easy.
November 3, 2011 at 0:07 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
When old stuff is surpassed by new stuff, I tend to delete the old. There's little point in keeping the old as searches will fruitlessly find this stuff, as will browsing. It's clutter even as a room filled with piles of books is clutter.
November 3, 2011 at 0:31 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark wrote:
<<In my opinion there is no point at all in weeding electronic storage since to all intents and purposes the capacity nowadays is infinite.>>
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<<When old stuff is surpassed by new stuff, I tend to delete the old. There's little point in keeping the old as searches will fruitlessly find this stuff, as will browsing. >>
Both are true. I say, if you happen upon something old that you don't need, delete it in that moment. But don't make a project to review all the Gigabytes on your hard drive!
I use a folder called "Bulletin" that facilitates this with no extra effort. In my email program, I move all timely "FYI" messages (the vast majority of emails I get) to the Bulletin folder. Periodically, I select the oldest 6 months or so of emails (which sit a couple of years back) and delete them all. The space savings is insignificant, but the search clutter savings is nice, and the only extra work is a few mouse clicks every six months.
The same technique applies to regular files on the hard drive, using a "Bulletin" folder in the OS.
I actually name these folders "_Bulletin" so that they will alphabetize to the top for easy filing.
<<In my opinion there is no point at all in weeding electronic storage since to all intents and purposes the capacity nowadays is infinite.>>
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<<When old stuff is surpassed by new stuff, I tend to delete the old. There's little point in keeping the old as searches will fruitlessly find this stuff, as will browsing. >>
Both are true. I say, if you happen upon something old that you don't need, delete it in that moment. But don't make a project to review all the Gigabytes on your hard drive!
I use a folder called "Bulletin" that facilitates this with no extra effort. In my email program, I move all timely "FYI" messages (the vast majority of emails I get) to the Bulletin folder. Periodically, I select the oldest 6 months or so of emails (which sit a couple of years back) and delete them all. The space savings is insignificant, but the search clutter savings is nice, and the only extra work is a few mouse clicks every six months.
The same technique applies to regular files on the hard drive, using a "Bulletin" folder in the OS.
I actually name these folders "_Bulletin" so that they will alphabetize to the top for easy filing.
November 3, 2011 at 5:36 |
Bernie
Bernie
Alan:
<< There's little point in keeping the old as searches will fruitlessly find this stuff, as will browsing. >>
Desktop search engines such as Google Desktop return their findings in date order so I don't really see what the problem is. Why regularly spend hours "clearing the clutter" for the sake of occasionally saving a few seconds?
For example I never delete any email except spam and I can find any email within seconds using Nelson Email Organizer.
<< There's little point in keeping the old as searches will fruitlessly find this stuff, as will browsing. >>
Desktop search engines such as Google Desktop return their findings in date order so I don't really see what the problem is. Why regularly spend hours "clearing the clutter" for the sake of occasionally saving a few seconds?
For example I never delete any email except spam and I can find any email within seconds using Nelson Email Organizer.
November 3, 2011 at 10:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I don't have GDS. Strict date-order is incorrect. It's a question of what is relevant still, not what is old. I don't spend hours clearing, nor seconds searching. I spend minutes searching, finding dumb stuff before finding the real, and seconds to minutes clearing away the rubbish. Email is different. I find it's better to keep those around.
November 3, 2011 at 12:07 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
<< I spend minutes searching, finding dumb stuff before finding the real, and seconds to minutes clearing away the rubbish. >>
Since I spend seconds searching and no time at all clearing, it would seem my methods are better than yours!
But seriously, I was mislead by your earlier statement "If there's no reason to use the information, it should be destroyed" into thinking that you spent a lot more time clearing than you actually do.
<< I spend minutes searching, finding dumb stuff before finding the real, and seconds to minutes clearing away the rubbish. >>
Since I spend seconds searching and no time at all clearing, it would seem my methods are better than yours!
But seriously, I was mislead by your earlier statement "If there's no reason to use the information, it should be destroyed" into thinking that you spent a lot more time clearing than you actually do.
November 3, 2011 at 13:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm dealing with 15 years of legacy info created by 10 people. If I don't pull out the good stuff when I find it, I will have to refind it every time!
November 3, 2011 at 16:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
Pulling out the good stuff when you find it is different from destroying old information.
I don't think we've been talking about quite the same thing.
Pulling out the good stuff when you find it is different from destroying old information.
I don't think we've been talking about quite the same thing.
November 3, 2011 at 17:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
But why leave the bad stuff around to confound future searches? If it's old revisions of stuff later finalized, get rid of it. Why not?
November 4, 2011 at 18:59 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
To start off with you said all old information should be destroyed unless there was a answer to the question "How will it be used?". This was in response to a couple of posts about "waterfall" decluttering.
My response to that was that modern searching and tagging made it a waste of time.
Now all you seem to be saying is that you should destroy old outdated versions should you happen to come across them in a search. Yes, sure, but that's not at all what I understood you to be saying to begin with.
To start off with you said all old information should be destroyed unless there was a answer to the question "How will it be used?". This was in response to a couple of posts about "waterfall" decluttering.
My response to that was that modern searching and tagging made it a waste of time.
Now all you seem to be saying is that you should destroy old outdated versions should you happen to come across them in a search. Yes, sure, but that's not at all what I understood you to be saying to begin with.
November 5, 2011 at 0:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I also hold to that angle. I don't actively hunt dead documents, but if I finish working something, I am inclined to delete it if there's no probable future use. I could dump it into a Google-indexed bottomless pit as you suggest, and to my eyes there's little difference either way.
November 5, 2011 at 2:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
<< I could dump it into a Google-indexed bottomless pit as you suggest >>
You don't need to dump it. You leave it where it is. If you can find something virtually instantly, then it's not what is meant by the metaphoric expression "bottomless pit", is it?
"No probable future use" - I don't go much for that word "probable". If you delete 100 documents and then find you need one of them, would that have been a probable future use?
However what you originally said was:
"I've taken the hypothesis that all information exists to be used. If there's no reason to use the information, it should be destroyed. If it needs to be kept, there must be an answer to the question "how will it be used?" Answer that, and you know how to organize that information."
That sounds a bit more proactive than just deleting drafts once you've finished with them. Have you in fact changed your mind about this, or was I just being misled by the strength of your rhetoric?
<< I could dump it into a Google-indexed bottomless pit as you suggest >>
You don't need to dump it. You leave it where it is. If you can find something virtually instantly, then it's not what is meant by the metaphoric expression "bottomless pit", is it?
"No probable future use" - I don't go much for that word "probable". If you delete 100 documents and then find you need one of them, would that have been a probable future use?
However what you originally said was:
"I've taken the hypothesis that all information exists to be used. If there's no reason to use the information, it should be destroyed. If it needs to be kept, there must be an answer to the question "how will it be used?" Answer that, and you know how to organize that information."
That sounds a bit more proactive than just deleting drafts once you've finished with them. Have you in fact changed your mind about this, or was I just being misled by the strength of your rhetoric?
November 5, 2011 at 10:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Possibly I don't have a well-developed archive retrieval sense that you have.
"If you delete 100 documents and then find you need one of them, would that have been a probable future use?"
If I delete something, it's because I can't imagine needing it again, with emphasis on imagination. In killing 100, it would be extremely unlikely even one would be "needed". Most things aren't irreplaceable, and the most common reason to delete something is that I already have a replacement.
Perhaps you were mislead by the strength of my claim. In this matter I am emphatically reactive: I only clean up what I'm otherwise working on.
"If you delete 100 documents and then find you need one of them, would that have been a probable future use?"
If I delete something, it's because I can't imagine needing it again, with emphasis on imagination. In killing 100, it would be extremely unlikely even one would be "needed". Most things aren't irreplaceable, and the most common reason to delete something is that I already have a replacement.
Perhaps you were mislead by the strength of my claim. In this matter I am emphatically reactive: I only clean up what I'm otherwise working on.
November 5, 2011 at 13:09 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
Thanks for making this clear.
So you won't be needing any additional strategies for information declutterification after all?
Thanks for making this clear.
So you won't be needing any additional strategies for information declutterification after all?
November 5, 2011 at 14:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm open to new more effective approaches.
November 5, 2011 at 14:30 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark wrote:
<< Sorry, to give you project #41, Seraphim! >>
Actually, I am not tempted by this kind of thing anymore. I've even stopped using "Read It Later".
If I want to read something later, I just select the text, right click and choose "Save to OneNote". The selection is automatically added as an item at the end of my Autofocus list in OneNote. It gets processed like any other task. If it gets dismissed, it still stays on my dismissed list for awhile. If I don't activate it, it eventually gets archived in an easily searchable archive. I'm guessing I'll need to delete really old archives if my disk starts getting too full, but I'm not anywhere near that point yet.
If I *do* end up reading it, it goes to the end of my list again, until I am done reading it. At that point, it gets archived in a "done" folder. Which is also searchable.
This has been so much more effective than "off list" reading piles or stacks or online services, because it's directly integrated into my AF-style processing. The article or snippet or whatever it is, is right there in my list, and saved for future searching. Kind of like NEO but much broader in scope.
<< Sorry, to give you project #41, Seraphim! >>
Actually, I am not tempted by this kind of thing anymore. I've even stopped using "Read It Later".
If I want to read something later, I just select the text, right click and choose "Save to OneNote". The selection is automatically added as an item at the end of my Autofocus list in OneNote. It gets processed like any other task. If it gets dismissed, it still stays on my dismissed list for awhile. If I don't activate it, it eventually gets archived in an easily searchable archive. I'm guessing I'll need to delete really old archives if my disk starts getting too full, but I'm not anywhere near that point yet.
If I *do* end up reading it, it goes to the end of my list again, until I am done reading it. At that point, it gets archived in a "done" folder. Which is also searchable.
This has been so much more effective than "off list" reading piles or stacks or online services, because it's directly integrated into my AF-style processing. The article or snippet or whatever it is, is right there in my list, and saved for future searching. Kind of like NEO but much broader in scope.
November 10, 2011 at 7:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I'm with Mark on this for personal (anything I have received or created) filing.
Everything goes in the "My Documents" folder, with a default sort by "last modified date" This sort order is primarily for the convenience of having the latest saved copy at the top of the browse window when, for example, I send a mail and want to include it. In Outlook 2007 that's <alt>+N A F <return> (or one extra click after the F).
Or it goes in an Outlook file for the year. (More than a year's data in a single file tends to make Outlook unstable).
If you're on Windows, you don't need Google Desktop any more. Windows Explorer (Vista inwards) has a powerful indexed search built in. Just hit the windows key and start typing search terms (such as "From:<part of name> to:<part of name> subject:<key phrase in subject> <key word in file>"). This brings up files (documents, data and program), Outlook items and more.
Storage expands with each (3 year) laptop replacement faster than I use it up.
This works fine for personal storage. For teams, I can see that you do need to pay a little more attention to standards of tagging and some way of knowing what's likely to be available.
And of course, you also need to think about what you might be making available to others.
However, as soon as you get into weeding a backlog, you are into a huge amount of work. So throwing it away as soon as you are finished might well be the most efficient strategy for some.
Everything goes in the "My Documents" folder, with a default sort by "last modified date" This sort order is primarily for the convenience of having the latest saved copy at the top of the browse window when, for example, I send a mail and want to include it. In Outlook 2007 that's <alt>+N A F <return> (or one extra click after the F).
Or it goes in an Outlook file for the year. (More than a year's data in a single file tends to make Outlook unstable).
If you're on Windows, you don't need Google Desktop any more. Windows Explorer (Vista inwards) has a powerful indexed search built in. Just hit the windows key and start typing search terms (such as "From:<part of name> to:<part of name> subject:<key phrase in subject> <key word in file>"). This brings up files (documents, data and program), Outlook items and more.
Storage expands with each (3 year) laptop replacement faster than I use it up.
This works fine for personal storage. For teams, I can see that you do need to pay a little more attention to standards of tagging and some way of knowing what's likely to be available.
And of course, you also need to think about what you might be making available to others.
However, as soon as you get into weeding a backlog, you are into a huge amount of work. So throwing it away as soon as you are finished might well be the most efficient strategy for some.
November 10, 2011 at 9:12 |
Will
Will
Seraphim:
<< If I want to read something later, I just select the text, right click and choose "Save to OneNote". The selection is automatically added as an item at the end of my Autofocus list in OneNote.>>
I use much the same system, though as I prefer paper and pen I obviously don't have the article in my list. I clip it into Evernote, and put the article's title into my list. Even if I decide not to read it, the article is still there in it's original form and can be found in a moment.
<< If I want to read something later, I just select the text, right click and choose "Save to OneNote". The selection is automatically added as an item at the end of my Autofocus list in OneNote.>>
I use much the same system, though as I prefer paper and pen I obviously don't have the article in my list. I clip it into Evernote, and put the article's title into my list. Even if I decide not to read it, the article is still there in it's original form and can be found in a moment.
November 10, 2011 at 13:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Clearly, I need to get more proactive. If I can get ahead of the game for each avenue we're pursuing, ready for what's coming, I will be able to work each more efficiently, make communications briefer, and delegate more work outwards.
I intend to keep my systems, but I will need to be efficient about what is done and how, and to cover all sides without fail. Possibly additional strategies will be needed for time allocation, organizing communications, planning, information declutterification.
Suggestions?