Discussion Forum > Keeping the list reasonably short
There are all sorts of ways by which I keep the list short (or try to!). I think frequent weeding is necessary and also not letting myself add similar tasks to the ones I've got already. For instance, I only allow myself to have one video/DVD on the list at a time and one book (or perhaps one fiction and one non-fiction book). This is important for a serial non-finisher of books like myself.
In general my rule is not to add anything to the list which will detract from the things I have already committed to. This is a pretty good rule whatever system you are following.
As for "blogs", "finance", etc. I already know which blogs I read and what daily financial actions I take - there's no need for a list. Anything one does regularly quickly develops into a routine if you let it. And yes, I use project lists when needed.
A simple method for keeping the list weeded would be to say that whenever the list rises to, say, 80 tasks you weed it back to 60 (figures given purely for example). Another would be to say that whenever there are tasks on the list which are more than, say, 3 days old you have to weed the whole list by the number of tasks that are over that age. With a random system that would be better than just chucking the old tasks, as it's no fault of the tasks that the randomizer hasn't picked them.
In general my rule is not to add anything to the list which will detract from the things I have already committed to. This is a pretty good rule whatever system you are following.
As for "blogs", "finance", etc. I already know which blogs I read and what daily financial actions I take - there's no need for a list. Anything one does regularly quickly develops into a routine if you let it. And yes, I use project lists when needed.
A simple method for keeping the list weeded would be to say that whenever the list rises to, say, 80 tasks you weed it back to 60 (figures given purely for example). Another would be to say that whenever there are tasks on the list which are more than, say, 3 days old you have to weed the whole list by the number of tasks that are over that age. With a random system that would be better than just chucking the old tasks, as it's no fault of the tasks that the randomizer hasn't picked them.
February 12, 2014 at 10:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I have found that using the random method my list naturally shrank to less than two pages and has stabilised there. I can't get it over two pages without forcing lots of new projects on to it. My list has never been this short with any other method, and there is so little overhead.
I keep a separate list of projects, and pick a new one for the random list when I feel there is room for it, usually when I complete a project or can't move any further for a few days on a project (in which case I remove it from the random list).
I keep a separate list of projects, and pick a new one for the random list when I feel there is room for it, usually when I complete a project or can't move any further for a few days on a project (in which case I remove it from the random list).
February 12, 2014 at 12:22 |
Wooba
Wooba
Mark and Wooba - thank you! very helpful replies
February 12, 2014 at 15:52 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster wrote:
<< In general my rule is not to add anything to the list which will detract from the things I have already committed to. This is a pretty good rule whatever system you are following. >>
Yes, that's good advice, and I will keep it in mind.
I suppose this is more important with the Randomizer, than with standard AF1 (for example).
With AF1, you'd get the "percolation effect" -- frequent exposure to every item on the list, priming your subconscious mind to find the things that "stand out". When it's time for "dismissal", you'd presumably seen the tasks many times already, and still taken no action. Thus "dismissal" was the automatic weeding-out function. Randomizer doesn't seem to have a built-in percolation effect. It's either "do or delete". I guess I'll just keep working with it, and see how these things work out in practice.
<< In general my rule is not to add anything to the list which will detract from the things I have already committed to. This is a pretty good rule whatever system you are following. >>
Yes, that's good advice, and I will keep it in mind.
I suppose this is more important with the Randomizer, than with standard AF1 (for example).
With AF1, you'd get the "percolation effect" -- frequent exposure to every item on the list, priming your subconscious mind to find the things that "stand out". When it's time for "dismissal", you'd presumably seen the tasks many times already, and still taken no action. Thus "dismissal" was the automatic weeding-out function. Randomizer doesn't seem to have a built-in percolation effect. It's either "do or delete". I guess I'll just keep working with it, and see how these things work out in practice.
February 12, 2014 at 17:36 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
[I've rescued the title - MF]
Mark wrote:
<< Here's a few things I've picked up as I've been working the system and trying out variations:
1) Keeping the list reasonably short is essential. At the moment my list is 39 items long and it's working brilliantly. I think it could be a bit longer than that without too much problem, but a long list is too slow to keep the work moving. >>
(in comments of this thread: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time-management.html )
I have some questions about this - I really want to understand how you do this, so I can make it work too.
How do you manage to keep the list short? Is it simply by keeping your commitments under control? Or do you do some kind of "pre-filtering"? Or maybe something else?
In the same comment, Mark wrote:
<< 4) I find this system works best with larger tasks than I use with normal AF or FV. So rather than have a lot of small items, I tend to combine them. For example I would have "Read blogs" rather than list all the blogs I follow; "Finance" rather than all the different actions I take in respect of my finances. >>
Does this mean you keep sub-lists (e.g., a list of blogs to visit; a list of financial things to deal with)? Perhaps project lists? Or do you mainly handle these kinds of things ad-hoc?
THANKS!!