FV and FVP Forum > Complete List
Yes it is very possible. This is why it's suggested to start with a short list, and why I aim to keep the list short. Nevertheless, if the list became long, a single scan would select more tasks, and you would take longer to do all those. Which means, it may take 10 minutes to go through, but that will be trivial compared to the time spent doing all those tasks you selected.
March 16, 2012 at 11:35 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
A 'short list' to me means an incomplete list. What are the suggestions for the rest of the items that are not added in an effort to keep it short?
My mind dump yesterday pulled out 138 items - not everything is currently actionable, but certainly 100 of those items would be.
My mind dump yesterday pulled out 138 items - not everything is currently actionable, but certainly 100 of those items would be.
March 16, 2012 at 12:40 |
Strathy
Strathy
Pretend you are about to do a GTD Weekly Review or some other ungodly time-management exercise, complete with procrastinating by going to the bathroom, weeding the garden, and verifying that no light bulbs need changing.
Then, instead, spend ten minutes scanning your entire list. Mine was well over 100 items but is now at 75, including some 20-30 new items added to the end of the list. I find the scans are very quick, as I am pretty familiar with my list. I've never timed myself, but it can't be taking more than five minutes.
Then, instead, spend ten minutes scanning your entire list. Mine was well over 100 items but is now at 75, including some 20-30 new items added to the end of the list. I find the scans are very quick, as I am pretty familiar with my list. I've never timed myself, but it can't be taking more than five minutes.
March 16, 2012 at 13:28 |
Bernie
Bernie
To keep the list short yet complete:
- group things into projects
- put stuff away into a tickler file
- delete things that really aren't important
- pull out and schedule daily routines
- get things done and cross them off
But all this is optional. I am given to understand a long list also works.
- group things into projects
- put stuff away into a tickler file
- delete things that really aren't important
- pull out and schedule daily routines
- get things done and cross them off
But all this is optional. I am given to understand a long list also works.
March 16, 2012 at 13:37 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Personally I find doing the scan the most pleasurable part of FV. it's what I look forward to as I work through the preselected list.
March 16, 2012 at 14:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
My FV list currently has the remains of rotating lists for recurring items:
Rotating Lists: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1583554
(Bad description of a good system.)
I like the way it's working. The bottom half is entirely things that aren't due yet -- easy to scan. My old weekly list is my first FV page, so weekly tasks are getting a lot of attention right now. That would be different if it were in the middle, though I'd still benefit from seeing all the weekly tasks in one place and knowing if I were keeping up.
However, maintaining those sub-lists would be a tweak to FV. Mark has asked that we not tweak the system for a while, so instead of my old way of writing the recurrence at the bottom of the sub-list, I'll write it at the end of the big list. It's easy enough to go back if it doesn't work, and chances are it will work just fine.
Rotating Lists: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1583554
(Bad description of a good system.)
I like the way it's working. The bottom half is entirely things that aren't due yet -- easy to scan. My old weekly list is my first FV page, so weekly tasks are getting a lot of attention right now. That would be different if it were in the middle, though I'd still benefit from seeing all the weekly tasks in one place and knowing if I were keeping up.
However, maintaining those sub-lists would be a tweak to FV. Mark has asked that we not tweak the system for a while, so instead of my old way of writing the recurrence at the bottom of the sub-list, I'll write it at the end of the big list. It's easy enough to go back if it doesn't work, and chances are it will work just fine.
March 16, 2012 at 14:18 |
Cricket
Cricket
I love the scan through the list as well, which for me is a long list --still north of 450 items-- for every task I do, two more take its place :).
I don't think it takes more than 3 minutes to do a scan. I've been preselecting about 5-12 items each time, I am confident they are the right items, and, most importantly, I am getting them done.
I don't think it takes more than 3 minutes to do a scan. I've been preselecting about 5-12 items each time, I am confident they are the right items, and, most importantly, I am getting them done.
March 16, 2012 at 14:34 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
One may try working with the last seven days or some such suitable number. As progress is made, one can slowly bite off more. Ultimately, I expect that FV will result in a relatively short list.
March 16, 2012 at 14:44 |
Geoff
Geoff
Alan wrote: <<To keep the list short yet complete:
- group things into projects
- put stuff away into a tickler file
- delete things that really aren't important
- pull out and schedule daily routines
- get things done and cross them off
But all this is optional. I am given to understand a long list also works.>>
These are some very good points; "cleaning up" the list is a dilemma for me.
Looking at extremes, if you clean it up too much, what do you have? You certainly don't have much of an MF-FV System anymore. If you don't clean it up at all, then there's a chance of really important and urgent items being buried and too many un-actionable items (I know this is debatable).
I like to think back at when I had too many side lists, or too many someday's. Then, the out-of-sight-out-of-mind (OSOM) effect kicked in and I just ignored them, and worst of all, they created clutter (both physically and mentally).
There must be some sort of middle ground for tasks. I remember that dragging related tasks onto each other in OmniFocus simply makes sub-tasks out of them. Of course, everybody knows this, but the point is that once you collapse these groups, the rest of your list is shorter and more manageable, and the other important and urgent items stand out faster. Also, seeing the items grouped is healthy in some cases because it gives perspective and helps with sequence/prerequisites.
I also don't want to be forced to re-write too many un-doable tasks at the end. (Being "out of context" is a whole other (but related) issue.)
One time Jupiter came up with a Current Project List (CPL). A separate list of projects would act as a good reminder and allow you to scribble notes, priorities, symbols, etc. on it. Treat it like a checklist or whatever; the main thing is you wouldn't forget.
A CPL might also be useful to remind you of the different "places" things are, both digitally (OneNote, EverNote, Omni, etc.) and on paper (notebooks, folders, in FV, etc.).
On the other hand, I also liked nuntym's simple suggestion in the "Someday, Maybe" thread (http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1757306 ): "Cross out the item you want to dismiss but add something to distinguish it from a deleted item. In my practice I place a "D" at the end."
So, I think the answer for "the other things" lies somewhere in the grey area of "when you +really+ need to do something to make your system more effective," but always trying to keep moving un-done tasks out to a minimum (and avoiding coming up with yet other ways to complicate your system).
Some of these "other things" could include:
- the things Alan mentioned (projects, tickler (scheduled/time blocks), routines (and checklists)),
- contexts (people, out-and-about, waiting-for, etc.), and
- the dreaded someday/maybe's.
- group things into projects
- put stuff away into a tickler file
- delete things that really aren't important
- pull out and schedule daily routines
- get things done and cross them off
But all this is optional. I am given to understand a long list also works.>>
These are some very good points; "cleaning up" the list is a dilemma for me.
Looking at extremes, if you clean it up too much, what do you have? You certainly don't have much of an MF-FV System anymore. If you don't clean it up at all, then there's a chance of really important and urgent items being buried and too many un-actionable items (I know this is debatable).
I like to think back at when I had too many side lists, or too many someday's. Then, the out-of-sight-out-of-mind (OSOM) effect kicked in and I just ignored them, and worst of all, they created clutter (both physically and mentally).
There must be some sort of middle ground for tasks. I remember that dragging related tasks onto each other in OmniFocus simply makes sub-tasks out of them. Of course, everybody knows this, but the point is that once you collapse these groups, the rest of your list is shorter and more manageable, and the other important and urgent items stand out faster. Also, seeing the items grouped is healthy in some cases because it gives perspective and helps with sequence/prerequisites.
I also don't want to be forced to re-write too many un-doable tasks at the end. (Being "out of context" is a whole other (but related) issue.)
One time Jupiter came up with a Current Project List (CPL). A separate list of projects would act as a good reminder and allow you to scribble notes, priorities, symbols, etc. on it. Treat it like a checklist or whatever; the main thing is you wouldn't forget.
A CPL might also be useful to remind you of the different "places" things are, both digitally (OneNote, EverNote, Omni, etc.) and on paper (notebooks, folders, in FV, etc.).
On the other hand, I also liked nuntym's simple suggestion in the "Someday, Maybe" thread (http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1757306 ): "Cross out the item you want to dismiss but add something to distinguish it from a deleted item. In my practice I place a "D" at the end."
So, I think the answer for "the other things" lies somewhere in the grey area of "when you +really+ need to do something to make your system more effective," but always trying to keep moving un-done tasks out to a minimum (and avoiding coming up with yet other ways to complicate your system).
Some of these "other things" could include:
- the things Alan mentioned (projects, tickler (scheduled/time blocks), routines (and checklists)),
- contexts (people, out-and-about, waiting-for, etc.), and
- the dreaded someday/maybe's.
March 16, 2012 at 16:23 |
BKK
BKK
Bernie:
<< ... complete with procrastinating by going to the bathroom, weeding the garden, and verifying that no light bulbs need changing. >>
ROFL!
<< ... complete with procrastinating by going to the bathroom, weeding the garden, and verifying that no light bulbs need changing. >>
ROFL!
March 16, 2012 at 16:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
vegheadjones wrote:
<< I love the scan through the list as well, which for me is a long list --still north of 450 items-- for every task I do, two more take its place :). ... I don't think it takes more than 3 minutes to do a scan. >>
Wow! How do you manage to scan it so quickly?
I have about 600 items and it takes 30-40 minutes to do a full scan. I also do enjoy this, but it does take a long time.
But I also notice that this is the first system I've tried where I see an immediate compression and reduction of my total list. Usually I've seen the list grow while I anxiously wait for it to reach a state of equilibrium.
Thus I expect the scanning time to drop -- the equilibrium level appears to be at some point with a smaller list than I currently have.
<< I love the scan through the list as well, which for me is a long list --still north of 450 items-- for every task I do, two more take its place :). ... I don't think it takes more than 3 minutes to do a scan. >>
Wow! How do you manage to scan it so quickly?
I have about 600 items and it takes 30-40 minutes to do a full scan. I also do enjoy this, but it does take a long time.
But I also notice that this is the first system I've tried where I see an immediate compression and reduction of my total list. Usually I've seen the list grow while I anxiously wait for it to reach a state of equilibrium.
Thus I expect the scanning time to drop -- the equilibrium level appears to be at some point with a smaller list than I currently have.
March 16, 2012 at 16:52 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan wrote: << To keep the list short yet complete: .... (list of ideas) >>
I agree these are useful ideas. But for now, I just want to let FV sort it out automatically, without a conscious attempt to "shorten the list". Mark seemed to think FV would do just fine with existing lists, even long ones, and so far I think he's right! :-)
I agree these are useful ideas. But for now, I just want to let FV sort it out automatically, without a conscious attempt to "shorten the list". Mark seemed to think FV would do just fine with existing lists, even long ones, and so far I think he's right! :-)
March 16, 2012 at 16:56 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi Seraphim,
I just timed it (geeky me), and I was wrong, but still much shorter than how long it takes you. My list, as of this moment is 511 items. It took 5 minutes and 28 seconds to scan the list and ask "the question" to each item. I ended up with a pre selected list of 21 tasks.
i know pretty quickly what each task is and if I want to do it before task X or not. If for some reason I am not sure what I wrote in the heading (most asks have a description too but i look at that during the selection, I usually want to find out before the last selected task, so it gets dotted as well.
OK off to do my 21 tasks!
I just timed it (geeky me), and I was wrong, but still much shorter than how long it takes you. My list, as of this moment is 511 items. It took 5 minutes and 28 seconds to scan the list and ask "the question" to each item. I ended up with a pre selected list of 21 tasks.
i know pretty quickly what each task is and if I want to do it before task X or not. If for some reason I am not sure what I wrote in the heading (most asks have a description too but i look at that during the selection, I usually want to find out before the last selected task, so it gets dotted as well.
OK off to do my 21 tasks!
March 16, 2012 at 18:09 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
Hi Seraphim,
I just timed it (geeky me), and I was wrong, but still much shorter than how long it takes you. My list, as of this moment is 511 items. It took 5 minutes and 28 seconds to scan the list and ask "the question" to each item. I ended up with a pre selected list of 21 tasks.
i know pretty quickly what each task is and if I want to do it before task X or not. If for some reason I am not sure what I wrote in the heading (most asks have a description too but i look at that during the selection, I usually want to find out before the last selected task, so it gets dotted as well.
OK off to do my 21 tasks!
I just timed it (geeky me), and I was wrong, but still much shorter than how long it takes you. My list, as of this moment is 511 items. It took 5 minutes and 28 seconds to scan the list and ask "the question" to each item. I ended up with a pre selected list of 21 tasks.
i know pretty quickly what each task is and if I want to do it before task X or not. If for some reason I am not sure what I wrote in the heading (most asks have a description too but i look at that during the selection, I usually want to find out before the last selected task, so it gets dotted as well.
OK off to do my 21 tasks!
March 16, 2012 at 18:17 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
Towards the end of my experimenting with the system I had two possible questions:
"Do I want to do this before x?"
(x being the current benchmark, and "this" being the task I am currently compariing with it.)
"What do I want to do before I do x?"
I chose the second for the simple reason that it was a lot faster to scan using it. With the first question I had to pause at each item and ask the question. With the second I could just zoom down the list until something caught my eye. Basically i was assuming that I didn't want to do anything before x unless something thrust itself into my consciousness.
I suspect those who are worried about the length of time a scan takes may be interpreting the second question as if it were the first.
"Do I want to do this before x?"
(x being the current benchmark, and "this" being the task I am currently compariing with it.)
"What do I want to do before I do x?"
I chose the second for the simple reason that it was a lot faster to scan using it. With the first question I had to pause at each item and ask the question. With the second I could just zoom down the list until something caught my eye. Basically i was assuming that I didn't want to do anything before x unless something thrust itself into my consciousness.
I suspect those who are worried about the length of time a scan takes may be interpreting the second question as if it were the first.
March 17, 2012 at 0:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I've read the rules and nearly all of the FV Forum and never picked up on this! I was asking "Do I want to do this before x?" The couple of times I found myself thinking of what I wanted to do before X and "corrected" myself.
While they are very similar, they have very different feel and speed as Mark notes. So FV might be even better than I thought now that I know the right question.
While they are very similar, they have very different feel and speed as Mark notes. So FV might be even better than I thought now that I know the right question.
March 17, 2012 at 1:26 |
MartyH
MartyH
@vegheadjones:
I think I now realize why it's taking me so long. I find I am frequently rewriting the tasks to make it easier to quickly assess the "what do I want to do before X?" question.
The way I have these set up in OneNote currently doesn't make it very easy to scan so quickly. A lot of the items are just emails sent to OneNote, or web pages sent to OneNote, and the title of the item is not always very clear, forcing me to glance at the contents of the item. When I was pausing on each one and assessing whether it "stood out", this was fine. But for the much quicker "do before?" question, there's no time to glance at the contents if I intend to move quickly.
I think I now realize why it's taking me so long. I find I am frequently rewriting the tasks to make it easier to quickly assess the "what do I want to do before X?" question.
The way I have these set up in OneNote currently doesn't make it very easy to scan so quickly. A lot of the items are just emails sent to OneNote, or web pages sent to OneNote, and the title of the item is not always very clear, forcing me to glance at the contents of the item. When I was pausing on each one and assessing whether it "stood out", this was fine. But for the much quicker "do before?" question, there's no time to glance at the contents if I intend to move quickly.
March 17, 2012 at 2:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark,
<<"Do I want to do this before x?" ... "What do I want to do before I do x?">>
I completely missed that! Now that I think about it, I did begin with the second wording and it did result in my scanning the list quickly for a stand-out as you described. But by now I've inadvertently shifted to considering each item and applying the first wording, which has still been pretty quick.
Thanks for pointing out the distinction.
<<"Do I want to do this before x?" ... "What do I want to do before I do x?">>
I completely missed that! Now that I think about it, I did begin with the second wording and it did result in my scanning the list quickly for a stand-out as you described. But by now I've inadvertently shifted to considering each item and applying the first wording, which has still been pretty quick.
Thanks for pointing out the distinction.
March 17, 2012 at 6:28 |
Bernie
Bernie
Seraphim: edit the titles, for clarity!
March 17, 2012 at 13:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I don't edit the titles for clarity, during the input process, that would slow me down too much, or during the scan process. If I don't know what an item is (usually because it is an imported email) and the desire to know what it is is greater than the previous selected task it goes on the preselect list. When I get to it on the preselect list, I either start it, to it, redefine it or delete it.
March 17, 2012 at 14:13 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Alan: << edit the titles, for clarity! >>
Yes, that's what I've been doing. Sometimes on the fly, sometimes by preselecting it like Vegheadjones says.
In addition to helping speed up the selection process, it also forces me to think through the "next action" on the item. It only takes a few seconds and helps so much. It also helps to eliminate dross when I realize there ISN'T any next action. :-)
Yes, that's what I've been doing. Sometimes on the fly, sometimes by preselecting it like Vegheadjones says.
In addition to helping speed up the selection process, it also forces me to think through the "next action" on the item. It only takes a few seconds and helps so much. It also helps to eliminate dross when I realize there ISN'T any next action. :-)
March 17, 2012 at 18:34 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I can see a scenario where there is a long list of "what I want to do befores" to the point where it becomes a bit silly. Is there a practical maximum before one should quit and start working on the tasks?
March 19, 2012 at 19:12 |
WolffG
WolffG
I don't think you should stop pre-selecting and start working. Something you really want to do before anything else might be at the end.
Having said that, if I see more than 7 dots in my list I wonder if I reverted to "want to do today" or "want to do more than" rather than "want to do before the previous dot". Those old habits are hard to break. Early days yet, and those numbers might change, but those are my current warning signs -- not goals, not targets, not maximums, just warning signs that I might have reverted. If I think I have, the only solution is erase all the dots and start over. I've only done it once (probably should have done it several times), and found not only did I choose fewer items, I chose different ones -- a sure sign I was asking the wrong question.
Sometimes I need to ask myself, "How badly do I want to do Y before X?" If it's just a little, I call it measurement error and don't dot it.
Note: As near as I can tell, Mark doesn't want to put a maximum size on the list. He's used it longer than anyone, so I'll follow his guidance.
I'm also curious. Do others find the same pattern, that using the right question results in a shorter list? If so, what length is your warning sign?
Having said that, if I see more than 7 dots in my list I wonder if I reverted to "want to do today" or "want to do more than" rather than "want to do before the previous dot". Those old habits are hard to break. Early days yet, and those numbers might change, but those are my current warning signs -- not goals, not targets, not maximums, just warning signs that I might have reverted. If I think I have, the only solution is erase all the dots and start over. I've only done it once (probably should have done it several times), and found not only did I choose fewer items, I chose different ones -- a sure sign I was asking the wrong question.
Sometimes I need to ask myself, "How badly do I want to do Y before X?" If it's just a little, I call it measurement error and don't dot it.
Note: As near as I can tell, Mark doesn't want to put a maximum size on the list. He's used it longer than anyone, so I'll follow his guidance.
I'm also curious. Do others find the same pattern, that using the right question results in a shorter list? If so, what length is your warning sign?
March 19, 2012 at 19:36 |
Cricket
Cricket
If you feel that it is time to quit the preselection session then that is exactly the right moment to do it. Nevertheless, I do suggest that you do finish scanning the rest of the list, as a visual feedback for what is still on the plate. It doesn't hurt and you might compile the next preselection even faster.
Keep in mind that various internal and external factors do influence the way you do preselect the tasks, even if you are not actively aware of it. Don't add any further rules. Just follow the flow and your intuition.
Keep in mind that various internal and external factors do influence the way you do preselect the tasks, even if you are not actively aware of it. Don't add any further rules. Just follow the flow and your intuition.
March 19, 2012 at 19:50 |
Stefano F. Rausch
Stefano F. Rausch
A few times, I got bored doing the preselection and wanted to get started. So I just started. It worked fine. It helped me from getting bogged down in too many nuanced narrow comparisons between items that are hard to say which one I want to do first. It seems to happen a lot with my (still) long list.
This doesn't break any rules, because, in theory, I could write "Get started already!" at the end of the list, and dot it, and start working the preselected list. The result would be exactly the same as just stopping the preselection process and starting to work.
This doesn't break any rules, because, in theory, I could write "Get started already!" at the end of the list, and dot it, and start working the preselected list. The result would be exactly the same as just stopping the preselection process and starting to work.
March 20, 2012 at 20:54 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
A few times I made a mistake and just started working the top item on my list. No harm done.
March 20, 2012 at 21:21 |
moises
moises
Seraphim, it's not supposed to be many nuanced comparisons. It's not a bubble sort, with every item compared to the current benchmark.
The question is "What do I want to do before X?" not "Do I want to do Y before X?" Mark discussed this elsewhere. It's a quick scan to see if there's something you want to do before, not many individual comparisons.
The question is "What do I want to do before X?" not "Do I want to do Y before X?" Mark discussed this elsewhere. It's a quick scan to see if there's something you want to do before, not many individual comparisons.
March 20, 2012 at 21:52 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Cricket,
Yes, I do use the wording you describe. But it still ends up creating many nuanced comparisons.
Let's say my list is ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVQXYZ.
I put a dot next to A. Then I scan for "what do I want to do before A?" Let's say A is a major work-related task that I've been resisting. OK, my mind is now thinking about "work" and "I don't want to do this, almost anything else would be better to do first". So I find myself preselecting B.
Now I scan for "what do I want to do before B?" Let's say B is a personal phone call, but I'm on work time, so I really should be avoiding personal items. C is a moderately challenging work item with little resistance. I want to do it before B, since I'm in "working mode". So I put a dot next to C.
I scan now for "what do I want to do before C?" I get all the way to K before I find something. Let's say K is some really urgent work task, but to do it at all, I need to spend half an hour on it. And let's say K reminds me of a bunch of tasks related to IT that I need to deal with. K gets a dot. And now I'm primed to be thinking about my IT-related tasks.
I find P, which is also IT-related, and I want to do it before K. P is a very interesting article that I've been wanting to read, and it will actually help me finish K more effectively, and will only take 5 minutes. So P gets a dot.
But now I'm thinking about other things I'd like to read, and am not really thinking so much about urgent IT tasks any more. I find T and am about to dot it, because I want to read it very much, and probably before P. But now I realize I am taking too long to do this preselection and have already got plenty of urgent tasks to accomplish. Need to get started already!! So I decide to add "get started now!!" to the end and dot it. And get the preselection taken care of!!
Anyway, this is a little exaggerated but that's how my comparisons happen sometimes. It would be really hard to make a case that T > P > K > C > B > A, where ">" equates to some uniform criterion. In reality, it actually means something slightly different in each comparison.
Yes, I do use the wording you describe. But it still ends up creating many nuanced comparisons.
Let's say my list is ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVQXYZ.
I put a dot next to A. Then I scan for "what do I want to do before A?" Let's say A is a major work-related task that I've been resisting. OK, my mind is now thinking about "work" and "I don't want to do this, almost anything else would be better to do first". So I find myself preselecting B.
Now I scan for "what do I want to do before B?" Let's say B is a personal phone call, but I'm on work time, so I really should be avoiding personal items. C is a moderately challenging work item with little resistance. I want to do it before B, since I'm in "working mode". So I put a dot next to C.
I scan now for "what do I want to do before C?" I get all the way to K before I find something. Let's say K is some really urgent work task, but to do it at all, I need to spend half an hour on it. And let's say K reminds me of a bunch of tasks related to IT that I need to deal with. K gets a dot. And now I'm primed to be thinking about my IT-related tasks.
I find P, which is also IT-related, and I want to do it before K. P is a very interesting article that I've been wanting to read, and it will actually help me finish K more effectively, and will only take 5 minutes. So P gets a dot.
But now I'm thinking about other things I'd like to read, and am not really thinking so much about urgent IT tasks any more. I find T and am about to dot it, because I want to read it very much, and probably before P. But now I realize I am taking too long to do this preselection and have already got plenty of urgent tasks to accomplish. Need to get started already!! So I decide to add "get started now!!" to the end and dot it. And get the preselection taken care of!!
Anyway, this is a little exaggerated but that's how my comparisons happen sometimes. It would be really hard to make a case that T > P > K > C > B > A, where ">" equates to some uniform criterion. In reality, it actually means something slightly different in each comparison.
March 20, 2012 at 22:25 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
But that's kind of irrelevant, you have a list of stuff that needs doing and you're just selecting a subset of stuff that you think needs doing first.
This (to me) needless what-if-ism is just unproductive nit-picking. Does FV produce an optimal ordering of tasks based on some uniform criterion? No. But who said you have to have a uniform criterion at all. Pick a few tasks and JFDI.
This (to me) needless what-if-ism is just unproductive nit-picking. Does FV produce an optimal ordering of tasks based on some uniform criterion? No. But who said you have to have a uniform criterion at all. Pick a few tasks and JFDI.
March 20, 2012 at 22:41 |
Ed
Ed
Seraphim:
I kind of agree with Ed. You're putting far too much thought into this. I would just have dotted A, then whammed down the list until I found something that was mentally flashing a red stop light at me, and so on to the end. Your aim is not to produce an optimal ordering (as if such a thing exists) but to construct a ladder which leads you into getting A done (and hopefully getting quite a bit of useful work done on the way).
I kind of agree with Ed. You're putting far too much thought into this. I would just have dotted A, then whammed down the list until I found something that was mentally flashing a red stop light at me, and so on to the end. Your aim is not to produce an optimal ordering (as if such a thing exists) but to construct a ladder which leads you into getting A done (and hopefully getting quite a bit of useful work done on the way).
March 20, 2012 at 23:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Good feedback, Mark and Ed, thanks! Actually I'm not putting much conscious thought into the decision process at all -- this is simply the mental process that "happens" when I ask the "what do I want to do before X?" question. This is just the way my mind works. LOL
I'll try to wham down the list looking for that red light. Maybe I'll rephrase the question: "what do I REALLY REALLY want to do before X?" or "what have I just GOT to do before I do X?" to prevent me from leaning too much in the other direction: "what do I sorta maybe might want to do before X?" since that seems to be what I'm doing. :-)
I'll try to wham down the list looking for that red light. Maybe I'll rephrase the question: "what do I REALLY REALLY want to do before X?" or "what have I just GOT to do before I do X?" to prevent me from leaning too much in the other direction: "what do I sorta maybe might want to do before X?" since that seems to be what I'm doing. :-)
March 21, 2012 at 1:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
I have experienced the same wandering focus while preselecting tasks, in that once I've dotted something quick and fun, then the fun has driven from my mind the urgencies I dotted earlier, so I end up dotting things that I don't want to do before the original benchmark, even though I might want to do them (in a vacuum) before the fun thing.
The key phrase is "in a vacuum." I've solved this by reminding myself that "what I want to do before x" is not to be construed in a vacuum, but in the context of this morning, with the amount of time I have right now before the next thing on my schedule. If I've made a long chain, it helps to pause and remind myself of some of the more urgent things on it. It is important not to turn this into a rational sorting exercise, just to keep my current schedule and situation as an intuitive frame of reference.
I think this problem will seem completely alien to some people, but obviously not to you and me! Fortunately, I've had really great success with my little method.
I have experienced the same wandering focus while preselecting tasks, in that once I've dotted something quick and fun, then the fun has driven from my mind the urgencies I dotted earlier, so I end up dotting things that I don't want to do before the original benchmark, even though I might want to do them (in a vacuum) before the fun thing.
The key phrase is "in a vacuum." I've solved this by reminding myself that "what I want to do before x" is not to be construed in a vacuum, but in the context of this morning, with the amount of time I have right now before the next thing on my schedule. If I've made a long chain, it helps to pause and remind myself of some of the more urgent things on it. It is important not to turn this into a rational sorting exercise, just to keep my current schedule and situation as an intuitive frame of reference.
I think this problem will seem completely alien to some people, but obviously not to you and me! Fortunately, I've had really great success with my little method.
March 21, 2012 at 2:43 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie -
<<seem completely alien to some people>>
Nope, I struggle with answering the "what do I want..." question as well. I don't have trouble with the first unactioned task on the list (the oldest one). Mainly because "What do I want to do before I do x?" is almost anything :) Things/thoughts become more obscure with the 2nd & 3rd benchmark.
<<seem completely alien to some people>>
Nope, I struggle with answering the "what do I want..." question as well. I don't have trouble with the first unactioned task on the list (the oldest one). Mainly because "What do I want to do before I do x?" is almost anything :) Things/thoughts become more obscure with the 2nd & 3rd benchmark.
March 21, 2012 at 3:42 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<< Mainly because "What do I want to do before I do x?" is almost anything :) Things/thoughts become more obscure with the 2nd & 3rd benchmark >>
And that results in your getting the first and second tasks on the list done, plus a few more urgent and/or less resistible tasks. That's what's supposed to happen though it's not a rigid thing apart from the first task.
<< Mainly because "What do I want to do before I do x?" is almost anything :) Things/thoughts become more obscure with the 2nd & 3rd benchmark >>
And that results in your getting the first and second tasks on the list done, plus a few more urgent and/or less resistible tasks. That's what's supposed to happen though it's not a rigid thing apart from the first task.
March 21, 2012 at 7:13 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Regarding cleaning up the list to keep it to a reasonable size, I put anything that isn't urgent and I probably won't have time to look at in the next week or two into Google Calendar, with an email reminder set. I pick a day, fairly roughly, closer to when I think I'll have time to do something about it. When I get the email reminder, I put the task on the list.
So Google Calendar functions as a kind of tickler file, or someday list - nothing gets forgotten entirely, because eventually Google will remind me about it, and then I either put it on the list so I can do it or I decide to scrap it completely.
What remains in my list are tasks that I intend to do something about in the next couple of weeks or so. That includes no more than the next couple of actions for mutli-task projects.
So Google Calendar functions as a kind of tickler file, or someday list - nothing gets forgotten entirely, because eventually Google will remind me about it, and then I either put it on the list so I can do it or I decide to scrap it completely.
What remains in my list are tasks that I intend to do something about in the next couple of weeks or so. That includes no more than the next couple of actions for mutli-task projects.
March 21, 2012 at 9:38 |
Annette
Annette
Annette,
I am using Wunderlist and what I do for tasks which I don't want to see in the immediate future is create a separate list called Deferred/Waiting. I put a date when I might want to get to it and then it shows up with a Due badge on that day. Very similar to using the Calendar for a tickler.
I also put items which I'm waiting for a response on that list as well.
I am using Wunderlist and what I do for tasks which I don't want to see in the immediate future is create a separate list called Deferred/Waiting. I put a date when I might want to get to it and then it shows up with a Due badge on that day. Very similar to using the Calendar for a tickler.
I also put items which I'm waiting for a response on that list as well.
March 21, 2012 at 10:43 |
Shak
Shak
Taking the "wham down the list looking for that red light" approach, I'm finding that each preselection batch tends to follow a "theme".
For example, if the first item is a "fun" item, then I tend to find other "fun" or "light" items. I end up choosing a handful of those, and get them done.
The next time around is more of an "administrivia round".
The next round is more "odds and ends that push some projects forward".
Interesting.
For example, if the first item is a "fun" item, then I tend to find other "fun" or "light" items. I end up choosing a handful of those, and get them done.
The next time around is more of an "administrivia round".
The next round is more "odds and ends that push some projects forward".
Interesting.
March 21, 2012 at 23:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Yes, that matches my exerience though I think my list is much shorter than yours.
Yes, that matches my exerience though I think my list is much shorter than yours.
March 22, 2012 at 2:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Yep, I too find myself doing the preselection more or less according to a theme. Also works nicely to keep the preselection to a reasonable size.
I'm still amazed after a week how well this system works to keep me from procrastinating. Although my list is still huge (>300 tasks), it's decreasing steadily and I'm not feeling overwhelmed by it anymore. Thanks Mark!
I'm still amazed after a week how well this system works to keep me from procrastinating. Although my list is still huge (>300 tasks), it's decreasing steadily and I'm not feeling overwhelmed by it anymore. Thanks Mark!
March 22, 2012 at 9:14 |
Nicole
Nicole
I'm slightly irritated, if it is necessary for the FV algorithm to read the complete list form the first undone entry to the end got generate the task-chain?
This could probably be very annoying if the list is very long?!
- Jens