Get Everything Done

I find the discussion on task phraseology rather interesting. I’ve had the internal debate on it for years now and I’ve swung this way and that on the topic. I like the suggestions I’ve heard in another post (including Mark Forster’s approach) and I thought I’d elevate the topic to its own thread.

I began with the GTD way, using successful outcome phraseology for my project list (ie: stating the intended outcome of the project in the past tense as though it has been done already, eg: “Marketing Strategy reviewed”) and next action phraseology for actions on my @context lists. My @context lists became “tangled” for lack of a better term (rambling things that didn’t match up with my project list very well). So I scrapped them and worked solely off of my project list for awhile using the successful outcome phraseology for everything. It worked pretty well. It all stayed on one list, the list triggered a brainstorm of next actions that I could take in my current context (ie: it worked in all contexts) and I didn’t feel pressured to plan it all out upon entry beyond defining what I wanted. But I still hated the GTD weekly root canal…I mean weekly review. Mark’s systems, with the “automatic” filtering of the list and review of only things that you resisted in small digestible chunks (vs GTD’s vigorous flossing of every cavity in your system) appealed to me, and I tried them out.

AF1 worked well with the successful outcome phraseology, but SF did not. Imagine if half the items on your SF list were at the “War and Peace read” level and you can see that your C2 would fill up in short order, forcing you to dismiss or action many a C1. I tended to action most items in my C1 in a desperate attempt to keep those tasks alive in my SF list, which of course overloaded the C2 of the next page… So I tried the next action phraseology in SF (break projects down to their next actions and write them beginning with an active verb to suggest a command, or an action to take). SF worked much more smoothly for me with the next action phraseology, and I flew through my list. But after a few months I noticed that my SF list grew faster than I could work it.

In retrospect, in both methods I had an urge or compulsion to brainstorm the actions I intended to take (GTD calls it project planning.) The difference was that with the next action phraseology I felt I had to record the outcome of said planning in terms of next actions to take on my list, while with the successful outcome phraseology I did not feel so inclined. This explains why my GTD @context lists became so unwieldy and unbalanced, and why my SF list grew faster than I could work it when I used the next action phraseology.

I have since gone back to the successful outcome phraseology because it allows me the creative latitude to come up with any next action I like that fits my current context (if such a next action exists of course), and it keeps my list succinct and manageable. It kind of feels like the stated task depicts that particular task’s “Future Self” from Mark’s book “How to Make Your Dreams Come True” (or as I like to say “How to Make Your Dreams Come To You”). As such each task on my list generates a miniature “pull state” with respect to that task in my mind.
I also went back because I can’t quash the compulsion to document the next actions resulting from my creative latitude when I use the next action phraseology. This compulsion tends to overload any system I try it with, which always results eventually in a sense of overwhelm.

But that’s me. There’s also a strong case for next action phraseology out there I’m sure. Bernie uses somewhat of a combination in which he states a noun followed by an action phrase that describes the successful outcome, but in a present tense “command.” (eg: “Marketing Strategy provide feedback”) which he finds conducive to list scanning (a common thing in FV). And Mark tends to avoid verbs altogether if possible, preferring instead a simple reference tag. (eg: “Marketing Strategy”)

What’s your tactic?

I use a hybrid system. Everything -- yes, everything -- on my list has next action and successful outcome defined, but I usually write neither. Successful outcomes vary, and sometimes they have layers. Ideal would be confidently singing in public next fall. Realistic is enjoy learning and sing nervously at guild by Christmas.

If I can't look at the line and automatically know outcome and next action, the next action is defining them. Likewise, if I don't know what the time constraints are (which includes a rough plan and timeline), then it's urgent I figure them out.

As for what I write down? I'm lazy. I write enough to remind me, and no more. I'm also too lazy to get another sheet for what I fool myself into believing will be quick notes. When that happens, I block it off so I know it's part of the project rather than a list I need to read each cycle through FV, and move on. (That habit didn't work with AF. Some pages had 31 lines of tasks. Others had 5 tasks and project notes.)

I used the GTD method for a long time. I think I understand David Allen's reasoning behind using it, but I usually found it to be unnecessary. I've been on a "simplification" journey and I much prefer Mark's method of simply jotting down enough words to jog your memory. I do generally add the action verb that Mark omits (e.g. "pay property taxes"), but I've begun experimenting with omitting that too (e.g. "property taxes," "Easter website/projector image" or just "Easter image").

A lot of discussions here emphasize action and wording. One of Mark's main insights I would say is how feeling affects the actions/behaviours we are willing to do. One of his early questions was "How good do I feel?". Procrastination is due to not feeling ready. If feeling good comes first perhaps all tasks get done in good timing.

"The only people who are bored are boring people." -- My Dad

(He changed to this after me moved out. When we still lived under his roof and ate his food, he said what every other parent says: "If you're bored, there's always the lawn to mow / garage to clean / ..."

That's pretty neat, ubi. You're effectively turning your action verb into a tag.

@ Hugo Ferreira

I feel the same way - that the <verb> <subject> construction is too limiting and non-conducive to the "little" part of "little and often." I tried simply stating the <subject> as Mark does and ran into the problem of my brainstorming proclivity that I mentioned in my original post in this thread. If I were to state “Sliding Banners” then my little and often actions that I came up with in the moment would eventually begin to wander away from my original intent. For example, in researching plug-ins I may learn of another use for plug-ins on my site than sliding banners. I’d research that and learn that this other use of plug-ins works best with websites with a certain directory hierarchy – which I would then research etc, etc, etc. Before I know it “Sliding Banners” has become “Completely Overhauled Website.”

Maybe that’s what I actually wanted – a redesigned website, and the above methodology would get me there. The problem I ran into wasn’t the wandering itself, but the fact that it never stopped. “Completely Overhauled Website” became “All New Marketing Strategy” became “Start a New Business” (that’s more conducive to the marketing techniques I’ve learned) etc. etc. etc… In the long haul, I find that such wandering tasks tend to grow beyond the scope of my current capability. (ie: I don’t have time to work a list full of tasks that grow both vertically and horizontally without end.)

I have found that putting a tad bit more on the <subject> would paint a picture of a desired end state. For example: “Sliding Banners on my Site.” This simple mental image does a few things for me. First, it does not dictate the steps I am to take to achieve it, thereby affording me the freedom to choose what to do in the moment (same as stating only the <subject>). Second, it provides loose boundaries to my in-the-moment action choices (as soon as I find myself researching something that does not put sliding banners on my site, I’d know I’d gone too far). And third, it put a cap on the task such that it would not continue forever (when I could look at my site and see sliding banners on it – I’d cross off the task.)

Now this would only be helpful to those of you who (like me) have trouble keeping the reins on their meandering thoughts. If I could simplify it further as Mark does, state only a single reminder and trust that my mind would not run away with it, then I would. Honestly, it sounds really calming and peaceful to me, just to imagine being able to do it that way. So more power to Mark for being able to. I’m jealous. Unfortunately, try though I may (and I have for more than 2 decades) I cannot keep my mind from meandering unless I state my desired intent up front as such.

Mark: re: feeling good and action

"What's different about days when things flow in good timing?" would be a good "Dreams" question?

I'm speculating there is a link between feeling good, less resistance, more inspired action and flow.

Hello,

I have had difficulty with this in the past as well. I have found all systems like with GTD, AF,SF and generallly any task system to become complicated when you approach a task but don't really know what you mean by it because of its structure. Or what you meant by it when you wrote it a while back. because you forgot. I've tried several methods, like the verb action first (call, email, write, print, go, visit etc.), and even omitting the verb all together and just leaving trigger words to remind you. Such as Call John re : reports or the vague: John reports. Either the verb method required too much thought and structure for my laziness, or the vagueness of it frustrated me when I slowed down on my list trying to figure out what I wanted to do..

Two problems:

verbs- too many verbs to choose . How do I know what I really need to do? do I need to call or contact? email or fax? go to or drive? Its not a major problem (since thats what makes the language cool) but when you're trying to make sense of a task list it becomes a hassle unnecessarily.

trigger words/memory jogging words- they are like tags, big mess if not thought through. also, I'm not a fortune teller. How do I know my future self will will understand this reminder and get going?

What I have realized always works for me is to structure the sentence with GET____(fill in blank)______. as simple and silly as it seems it always relieves stress on my to do lists.

But do not put the "GET" part. what you fill in the blank is outcome oriented and keeps me focused on what I really want to achieve/complete/get done/conquer/finish etc.. It also allows me to realize quickly if I'm putting nonsense on my list or not, by asking myself "Is that what I really want to get done?"/ why?

examples---
instead of: "buy groceries" I'll put "groceries" ...I know to GET groceries. It is done if and only if the groceries were "got". Otherwise, I re-enter it like FV Says to.

instead of:
call john
find books
pay phone bill
feed fish
workout
email sandra
watch TV
buy light bulb
clean house

I'll put:

follow up from John about due date
books found
phone bill paid
fish fed
a meaningful workout
a checkup on sandra to see how she is
TV watched
light bulb bought
house cleaned

The second list, is goal oriented, and puts your mind in an on/off or yes/no or done/undone mode. That's what I want! quick decision, focus and clarity.

The list may seem unordinary at first but as you use this sturcture more often you see the benefits. Looking at the first task on the second list, this new structure gives purpose to why I'm calling John, and I know its done if and only if I got the follow upfrom John. Theres nothing ambiguous when I see it a month from now and it doesn't take effort to structure. the structure is simply "GET (said in my head)"____ _____ when writing. IHad I worded it "call John" like in the first list, a month later I may ask why? what was this about?

Also, the watch tv clearly stands out like a sore thumb. There is no real purpose to 'get TV Watched' If I checked off "got TV Watched" It clearly wouldn't be an accomplishment (at least to me it wouldn't) What would I gain from an episode of Family Guy other than laughs?. If its a break I'm looking to put on my list, maybe I should replace it with a purposeful/meaningful break like "(get) a walk around the block" or "(get) a chapter of my novel read" or "(get) fifteen minutes of practice on piano". Don't eliminate breaks and fundoing things just make sure they are towards a bigger purpose.

What is also good about this structure, is when you want to break a task down, its simple. Just ask yourself:

..."to get this done, what do I need to get done?" or something around those lines.

It sound simplistic until you actually try it. I figured this out through practice of brainstorming and using mandalcharts. You only need to break it down into necessary components. Try to eliminate the optional components

Example: To get a shed built (a project/ goal/ large task depending on how you look at it), it would appear in my list like:

-shed built

The shed's not built if the shed's not built. plain and simple. But I know I have to break this down since it makes the large task manageable and action based. So I'll ask "to get the shed build , I would have to get...?" aha!...

-wood bought
-nails bought
-knowledge on how to build shed
-brother in law called to see if he can help
-get plan drawn up

I could go on and on about what I need to get,, but I just want a few to get started, not overwhelmed. It doesnt have to be a perfect plan. just a start. Most likely, I'll alter the plans anyways, but at least I can get started and make it realistic and progressing.This workd with goals as well...example: to (get) fit

I need to (get)
-3 sets on arms done
-20 pushpups
-a jog around block
-8 glass water drank today

One more thing, I have found for FV this structure makes the chain/ladder preselection much easier. since I can make clearer decisions when asking the question "what do I want to do before x". In my head, I feel more focusedand and confident when preselecting because I really do have a sense of what I want to accomplish more , therefore, I know what I want do do before I do x.

Summary, if you are having difficulties structuring tasks, I really suggest you try writing your tasks this way for a bit. If you want to get something done, it makes sense to me to stucture it:

(GET )__________

where the "get" is omitted from your list but just to mentally job your memory on how to write these task and the blank is result oriented.

Benefits:

-easy to write now and no vagueness when read later
-easily identify unimportant/non urgent tasks (don't fool yourself by putting watch tv as a task),
-result oriented tasks motivate you,
-clear sense of progress (i.e. shed built...shed is either built or isn't),
-easier to break tasks down, task lists are not bogged with nonsense tasks you dont understand, lists become shorter,
-lists become more manageable, you can still put fun tasks but meaningful ones (swap "tv watched" with "practice piano"),
-no guiilt in not doing a task exactly how its written/specific contexts (who cares if I called sandra or emailed her, or if i did it at work or home?
-as long as I achieved my purpose...to see how she's doing),
-you gain speed in the system because you stop less to ask why? or what is this task?

etc.

Hope this help others. Give it a try.

@GMBW

I too state my tasks as an image of the outcome. Also, I posted 3 comments on the following post:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1777175

In them I describe a process by which I determine the next action to take on anything, no matter how ill formed the task. Basically I "Define and acquire the missing resources."

It's a whole lot of concept and theroy to accomplish exactly what you describe in your comment above - only your method is sooo much easier to "get!"

I'll have to say, that's freaking awesome! I accomplishes the same things I accomplish with my "successful outcomes task phraseology" and the "Desired Outcomes Implementation Technique" (DOIT), but sums it all up in the word "GET."

Again, awesome. I've started using it already.

That's a great idea ubi!

IMHO, the crux of "The Question" is WANT and BEFORE. I think Mark means those two to be the key words in the question since they focus your answer on things that you are psychologically ready for (ie: "want") in a rough order of precedence (ie: "before"). That seems to be the whole point of the question.

Given that both of those elements are the same, I don't see how changing "do" to "get" would harm anything.

I'm going to give it a go right away.

@Miracle

I'm glad its working well for you. I thought my long explanation would
be confusing for some and overlooked.

It's great because you can literally throw any task, project , or goal
into that structure routine or not and naturally make your entire list
make sense by defaulting to a standard form.

After all we are either getting things done or get everything done
etc. Why not make a template from that?

And by reviewing this list where everything makes sense to you (almost
like a code) the important, the urgent, easy and hard things begin to
pop out to you more than others the more you use it.

The tools, resources and contexts don't have to be written (for me at
least) because I know what I need to get done. And I will know if or
if I have not achieved what I need to do. In the end, that's all that
matters.

It's almost as if all your tasks are on the same bases but project
themselves appropriately and differently.

I think 'get' is one of those special words that can replace all my
previous frustrations with verbs./trigger words for next action.
Previously, by assuming a verb before doing the task I would
unnecessarily attract complications to my task list.

@ubi

The little and often still applies. Nothing is changing except the way
you construct your task. This is simply so that your "future" self
knows what the task means. By using a template, there's no ambiguity
about the task.

Example:
Fish fed
Family guy watched
John called
Shed built
Moonlight sonata perfected

These are all tasks regardless if I word them one way or another. But
by wording them in the (get) _________structure I get focus and
clarity. Therefore , a lot less resistance.

Either I got the fish fed or I didn't. If I did, cross it off and add
to end of list so they don't die.

Either I got John called or I didn't. If I did, it's deleted. If not,
it remains on my list in FV fashion.

Either the shed is built or not. if not, I can break it down and add
to end of list. I don't have do it all in one shot. I can still do the
little and often.

Either I got moonlight sonata perfected or I don't. If not, then
little and often practice. If its perfected, i achieved my goal and I
can showoff.

I admit, the wording seems grammatically incorrect at times or
awkward. But it quickly becomes very fluent and fast for the present
and future you. And as you can see, it can be applied to one-off
tasks, recurring task , projects or goals.

I put 'family guy watched' on purpose, because I'm certain before you
got to this point you probably realized that this task is popping out
as not necessary. (maybe not) My point is, I can remove this from my
list because it won't push me towards anything meaningful. If my list
is long already , I don't want it to be sinking with tasks that
sacrifice my time towards bigger and better things. I like to take
advantage of my bad memory and forgetting I even put that task there.
That way, I'll more likely do something meaningful in the future.

>>Summary, do FV as normal to the 'T'. But, consider structuring your tasks in a way you can understand it. Don't put jibberish you won't understand on your task list only to get confused and resist later

@Mark Forster

My intentions are not to fiddle with your system at all. I think FV is perfect the way it is. I simply wanted to share my ‘Task phraseology’ as I realized it is a trending problem amongst others.

In fact after reading your FV instructions, one of my first tasks were “2 weeks of non-tweaking”. It has been crossed and re-entered a few times. And I believe I developed the habit of not needing to tweak at all. Soon it will be crossed for good. :)

I’m glad you’re giving it a try, but again, this phrasing works perfectly for me and may not at all work for you or others.

I have noticed on another thread, that you generally don’t understand the issue with phrasing. Which is probably because what has been working for you works for you very well. However, taking your sample list :

Farm in Queensland?
How support A's fund?
Fund Raising ideas?
What's happened to Bill P?
Parrot with yellow head and red underbelly?
Random timer?
Voip?
Monte Cristo sequels?
Universal capture?
600th Meeting?
Deadline for magazine?
Blog subjects?
Priority actions as VP?

I understand what these say and all that, but when I’m working the list, my mind see questions, so I think “answer this”. I think this form is sort of doing the same thing as I do. Except here I think you are simply subconciously phrasing the list as:

(consider)____________.

On the other hand, if the question marks are all removed, (my mind) sees a bigger mess. It sees a conglomerate of tags/trigger words and therefore I have to connect the dots before completing something.

Maybe I’m not explainging myself clearly with the problems I see on this list, but for some they may understand me a bit.

Suppose I come accross ‘Voip? ‘

If I’m in task mode, I now have to stop and think... ‘ voip...what about voip? /what do i need to consider about this?/ what action / decision is to be taken? /sign up for voip? or was it the ad i saw about the voip price rates?..etc.

This is a not so good example because, your list is your list and I simply don’t know your initial reason for ‘voip’ to pop in your head. But, if I were to just structure it a bit result oriented to begin with like “signed up with new voip plan” or “ signed up with voip to save money” I would have significantly less questions and my task mode would continue to flow.

One of my tasks, on my list were “post up on task phrasing”. Which I (got). Had I put something in trigger word form like : “task phrasing post?” or “FV task phrase post” I would probably be hemming and hawing/ doing unnecessary thought and cycling through unneccessary thought before completing.

Anyways, for me at least, I do not consider any mental overhead at all. Using this natural template/structure significantly reduces my mental effort when writing tasks and when doing it. It allows me to still rapidly capture something to get done. Again, it seems too simple in theory and sometimes grammatically incorrect but through practice I’ve found it to be great. In the end its all just words put together, so it doesnt matter. What does matter, is the doing part and allocating of time to what you are doing.

I’m not encouraging others to deviate/fiddle (in any way) with FV, but I encourage those with phrase problems to consider the structure and at least test your assumptions about it. Maybe something like “significant testing on structure” and/or “conclusion about structure” could exist on your list. If your conclusion is : works great, then use it. Otherwise don’t.

@ubi

["Learn" and "Contact" seem superfluous all of a sudden...]

I can see you're getting the hang of it really well because I 'see' the same thing. :) For some reason it has stuck with me over the years (and probably you too) that action oriented must equate to 'verb in sentence somehow'. But by using the (get)______ you achieve the same thing without anchored to specific (possible incorrect/unnecessary) verbs which imply a specific method.

The only thing, I find the rephrasing of past tasks to be tedious work. I would just start from scratch and leave the old tasks as is. Thats because I'm lazy and don't think rephrasing each tasks would give me any significant reward but going forward with a new method would.

Mark Forster:

I was going to talk about mindmapping in a previous post but I thought it would just make my post too long and all over the place. I have a lot of experience mindmapping. I like it a lot as well. It is true that less words increase clarity. But this is true only on a mindmap.

Mindmaps and task lists are clearly different things. The reason single words work on a mindmap is for many reasons because you can see the big picture, the connections are made visually through branches, also you can add pictures (worth a thousand words) to any branch. Further, Tony Buzan makes a distinction in branch lengths, and curvilinear branches to influence creativity and relativity between nodes. Indeed, they are great to flesh out thoughts and creativity. On a task list, it simply doesnt work.

Here is a video I'm sure you've seen before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlabrWv25qQ

at the 1:20 mark he explains what I'm trying to say properly. What you are saying, is at 2:35. I understand you fully.

But, you just can not get these things on a rigid list. Thats why the extra words are necessary to take care of those connections and visuals (focused or big picture) missing from your list.

I agree that less words increase clarity, but this is true on a map. Not so much on a list. That is not to say each task should be 20 words long. Thats just rediculous. The task should be written with 'enough' words to just understand later on. Whatever you're comfortable with.

My list isn't being entered in a writing contest. So I make sure I don't go overboard with it. I just don't want to forget something and at the same time I want to understand my reminder. I accomplish this with as few words as possible each time.

>>>>The reason single words work on a mindmap is for many reasons because you can see the big picture, the connections are made visually through branches...On a task list, it simply doesnt work....I agree that less words increase clarity, but this is true on a map. Not so much on a list.<<<<

I don't understand how you can continue to insist on this while Mark continues to tell you, "But it does...and here's why..."

>>>>>I just don't want to forget something and at the same time I want to understand my reminder. I accomplish this with as few words as possible each time.<<<<<

Yes, that's precisely the point. That's exactly what Mark advocates and he's telling you, "You can go fewer. Try it."

Tony's single word concept is great but shouldn't be incorporated in a task list. Take the shed building example.

If I use the too few words approach similar to mindmaps. I would put:

shed

On the other hand, If I add 'enough' words like (get)_______. It looks like:

shed built

The first task "shed" influences more thought than necessary. My mind goes to work first on what about shed ? rather than what I need to do....build it!

The second task "shed built" pulls my mind in the direction of building it and what needs to be done in order to do so second.

As you can, see the second task 'steers' me in the direction. It focuses me immediately on what needs to get done rather than what can be done about it. I find that leaving the task free as in "shed" coupled with the little and often approach leads to time wasted. I may just always think about shed and consider that progress. Where as structuring the task so that I see and endpoint (shed built) along with little and often approach a lot more progressive.

I like both mindmaps and task list. But they are different. To me mindmaps generate thought and are free and constant work in process as my mind can always add to it creatively. I want my task list to do the exact opposite. That is, zero in on the necessary components to achieve whatever is necessary. There is no creativity in what needs to be done. Example: there's only so many ways you can build a shed. But there are many things I can think of that are related to one.

Zack Allen

<<That's exactly what Mark advocates and he's telling you, "You can go fewer. Try it.>>

I am not trying to be stubborn. Believe me. lol I have tried it. I have experimented with it extensively since back in the AF days. For me, it is great for rapidly extracting the thought and anchoring it to a list but it is the cause for resistance when doing. Those are my conclusions. Its not a one size fits all conclusion.

I have found my approach to work for me. A template now, will be the same template later. No confusion.


>>>>>I just don't want to forget something and at the same time I want to understand my reminder. I accomplish this with as few words as possible each time.

Yes, that's precisely the point. That's exactly what Mark advocates and he's telling you,>>>>>>

I understand it seems as if we are saying the same thing. But we aren't. We both agree as few words as possible. No doubt about it. Where we differentiate is on the need for structure. I believe, a structure , such as mine is very useful. I think Mark (and others) believe, a structure is mental overhead. There is no right or wrong way to write your tasks. No one is grading you on how you phrase this or that. It boils down to your comfort level. As such, I am more comfortable with the structuring of a task rather than freely jotting reminders.

I don't see any practical difference. If I'm intending to build a shed and I have "shed" on my list, then I know exactly what "shed" means. There is no wasted time or cognition. Now, I will say that if, at the same time, I have multiple items related to the shed, it makes sense to clarify in as few words as possible (e.g. "shed built" or "shed cleaned"), but it would seem that the usual case of tasks involving the same item will be progressive in nature and, therefore, "shed" should suffice just once in the list. If I'm referring to two different shed, then perhaps an adjective will suffice (e.g. "red shed" "blue shed"). Again, you wouldn't have a clue what these mean looking at my list, but that doesn't matter. I'd know.

@ Alan Baljeu

>>"SHED" suffices when the the only possible action is BUILD, and you know how you will build it. <<

If thats the case, it doesnt hurt to just put “shed built” then.

>>"SHED" suffices when there are several things you can do with "SHED" but you intuitively know which you will do when you come to it.<<

If thats the case, stop thinking about those several things and anchor it to your list. i.e shed cleaned, shed painted, shed built, shed washed. all are clear actions, with endpoints. I know its done when its done. In my opinion, this IS alot of mental overhead, thinking thinking and thinking some more then not writing it down. It drains my brain and I constantly think what about shed? Imagine doing this for each scan!

@ Bernie

>>All of these tasks often begin as just one or two words, and my first action step is to round up the necessary details. I often "action" a phone call by finding the phone number and rewriting the task with it appended, especially if I am actioning it at a time when I cannot actually make the call. I find this very helpful and resistance-reducing next time I see the item.
I wonder what would be the effect of clearly separating these details from the keywords, either using punctuation or writing them on the next line. If they were visually separate, maybe they would not interrupt the flow of scanning.

This ‘action’ and action step concept sounds engraved in your workflow. I wouldn’t get wrapped up in detials but a list sounds like: -phone number found, -so and so called. I don’t understand what you mean by Separating from keywords using punctuation or writing them on the next line.

I am realizing that there is a lot of feedback about this post. I really don’t want to go on a tangent. But its very interesting seeing the comments on how others interpret task phrases. This clearly shows, what works for you, works for you. My initial post sums up to my structure is:
(get) __________ for task phrasing. The (get) is said in my head the _____is written on paper/recorded on list. Theres nothing magical about this. And I’m not promoting fiddling with your system.

The discussions about this seem to be getting theoretical, which are really just assumptions. If you are interested/skeptical I suggest you test your assumpitons. try it with a small list, dont waste time rephrasing every single thing. use common sense. It will work for some, (maybe?) not for others. It works for me and it works perfectly.

I think getting stuck on a specific structure and vowing to stick with it forever is counter-productive. So is saying none are needed.

Experiment for a few days with each structure. Chances are it will waste time for many tasks, but work wonders for some of them -- on the whole, saving more time than is wasted. I spent a few weeks years ago defining next actions and contexts for every project. Now I know that when a task squirms away from me, those are the tools to use. They're in my toolbox, right at hand, and they're comfortable. I can use them quickly. When a project starts growing, I know to define done. When it feels fuzzy or I feel guilty spending time it, I think about how it fits into my future reality, and if a different project would do the job better.

Eventually, your toolbox will have a wide variety of tools, and you'll be adept at picking the right one for the job. The only way to get a good toolbox is to use a wide variety of tools, and use them until you know what they're good for and how to use them efficiently.

I like the Get terminology. I don't feel the need for it now, but my son does. (Note to self: Horse, water.)

Right now, I'm focusing on "just do what you feel like". I've always assumed "little" meant a clearly-defined chunk, like reading one chapter or tidying an entire room. I've always worried about stopping a task before I've gotten into it. With FV, by the time I start a task I'm already into it, so that fear is reduced. I'm more able to stat a larger task when time is limited, or drop it and move on to something I'll be more effective at at the moment.

Will I stay with that, or go back to defined chunks? I don't know. I do know that even if I go back, I'll be more open to stopping a partly-done chunk, or doing more than one chunk, or 1.5 chunks, than I was before. That's a good tool to have in the box, even if I don't need it every day.

One of the things I love about Mark’s system and FV in particular is the low overhead. I hated the weekly review of GTD. I have been using the FV without tweaking since it came out with wonderful results.

After reading this thread I scanned my list and I don’t have any particular way I write a task…sometimes it has details like a phone number sometimes it has action verbs and some times just a single word. The wording of a task doesn’t seem to make a difference in my being productive; I don’t ever seem have a problem with wondering what I should do next. I have much less resistance to completing tough tasks using the FV rule “What do I want to do before X”. In addition without even thinking about it, it has helped me better plan my workload.

One thing I did stop doing was using my task list to do anything other than list my tasks. No more tracking of projects, calculating my churn rate, using it for documentation or notes that I completed a task on a specific date. My task list is only for making sure I get everything done.

I have also found out that by using FV, I am completing my projects (investigation reports) much faster. I write the project in my list with no next actions. Just one or two words – “Validation Survey”. When I get to that task, I pull out the file and using single sheet of paper or sticky; list what needs to be done. Using the FV method, I preselect tasks and start working. Some of these reports only take an hour to complete, but others take upward of 10-15 hours. If I don’t finish the report, I don’t even have to make a note where I left off. My list is there and I know exactly what my next action is. I just rewrite the task in my FV list “Validation Survey”.

So simple. Thanks Mark!


Jennifer

>>I don't see any practical difference. If I'm intending to build a shed and I have "shed" on my list, then I know exactly what "shed" means. There is no wasted time or cognition. <<

Good! If this works all the time for you then I can’t see you having a problem with task phrasing. If you know what each task means then good!

But for others it is a problem that exists. Maybe its because of different note taking or whatever. Seeing “shed” requires cognition and time. especially when ‘the question’ is asked. Imagine doing this each scan. What do I want to do before I do shed? There is not 1 question. Theres multiple, because you don’t know what about shed. So you figure out what about shed? then re-ask the question? This is a bigger cognition drain when you try to choose amongst vague answers.


>>If I'm referring to two different shed, then perhaps an adjective will suffice (e.g. "red shed" "blue shed"). Again, you wouldn't have a clue what these mean looking at my list, but that doesn't matter. I'd know.<<

Precisely. About the adjectives, sure why not. I may need to build the red one and clean the blue one. If Im building both. I’d just put build sheds!

Similarly, ‘clean house’---> living room cleaned, kitchen cleaned, carpets vacuumed, dishes washed. are all concrete tasks with endpoints that took literally no mental overhead for me to write. I wrote it as I thought it.

Aspirin for headache purchased
Aspirin for headache taken

@ Mark,

I too agree in not adding overhead. You should write as much as you need and no more. You stated it precisely when you said:

"Voip? is quite clear in my mind as to what the task description means"

My problem is that “VOIP?” would not be clear in my mind as to what the task calls for – even had I been the originator of the task in the first place. This lack of clarity would generally lead me to run with the task much further than I originally intended to, or to resist it mercilessly. Magnify this effect across every task on my list, and I’d have a list that uncontrollably expands to utterly unmanageable proportions due to infinitely recursive tasks. Others here (including you Mark) seem don’t seem to have this problem. You seem perfectly capable of heading in the direction you intended with only a loose reminder of what direction you originally intended. More power to you. I however, need my reminders to be a little more concrete to obtain the same mental control that you have without the additional definition.

The simplest statement that would state it clearly enough for me to put a cap on my run-away mental processor would be “VOIP acronym understood.” This way I can decide in the moment what I must do (or “get”) in order to complete the task, I know when I have finished the task, and I know when I have wandered off task. Magnify that effect across my whole list, and I have something much more manageable – something more akin to how you intended FV to run.

So I already use the simplest method of phrasing tasks I can, to make the scope of the task clear in my mind – just as you suggest I do. Additionally, after years of thinking of my tasks this way, it truly IS how tasks “pop into my head.” So for it to pop into my head as “VOIP acronym understood,” and then to simplify the phrasing down to “VOIP?” and later to decode what I meant by “VOIP?” WOULD constitute additional overhead FOR ME. Which is why I will not do it that way.

For you, if “VOIP?” suffices to clearly capture the task you had in mind (and I know it does), then I’d recommend you relieve yourself of the hassle of testing out our methodology. I don’t propose that one methodology works better than another, just that mine works best for me, and I’ve elaborated as to why it works best for me (since I’ve given it a ton of thought and experimentation).

My excitement over the “Get” phrasing comes from a different quarter. In three comments on (http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1777175) I breathlessly articulate a comparatively mentally laborious process I work through every time I “work the task for as long as I like” per your FV rules. While it may seem a complicated process when described conceptually, in practice it can become second nature – as it has for me over nearly a year of practice. I found that this mental process helped me immensely in the battle to keep my wandering and distracted mind on the task at hand. It has worked very, very well for me. But GMBW’s suggested method of breaking down tasks by asking yourself what ELSE you need to “get” in order to complete the task of “getting something done” accomplishes the same thing that my current mental exercise accomplishes – with LESS mental overhead.

That’s what got me so excited. It’s more mentally ergonomic than what I already use. It’s even less mental overhead. It’s simpler. Exactly what you suggest – the less overhead the better. Awesome. I’m sold.

Finally, I don’t feel that any of the above (for me personally) constitutes “fiddling with the system” but rather “fiddling with the way I think.” (which incidentally, sounds much better than “fiddling with myself…” Did I just type that out loud?)

To close – I do like your suggestion to use the system to get some real work done. (*adds “real work done” to FV list* ;-) I actually told myself a couple days ago that I’ve spent too much time in this forum and that I SHOULD get back to focusing on more “important” things on my FV list. But I didn’t FEEL like it, so I hung around a little longer. Then came GMBW’s post about the whole “get” thing. Glad I listened to my intuition. Now I feel like I caught the whopper that I fished for with my original post, and so my intuition tells me I’m done with posting for now. Time to “get” back to work.

So adieu for now. I’m off to chase the rest of my FV list “get” style.