FV and FVP Forum > Tagging or Highlighting Priority tasks ...
Yes, I do that occassionaly when I fear I'm overlooking tasks that are somewhat urgent or will become urgent in a few days. I use a green transparent sticky tab to mark these tasks, just to make them a bit more visible during preselection. I'm careful to use this highlighting sparingly, I rarely have more than 3 or 4 tasks marked this way, because the effect greatly dilutes when I overdo it.
I don't do anything like your "Tagged tasks", but sometimes I write a task "read entire list" and dot it, to have a good look at my list and see if there's anything in there that I scan too superficially when making the preselection. Helps me keep a good idea of what's in there in my head.
I don't do anything like your "Tagged tasks", but sometimes I write a task "read entire list" and dot it, to have a good look at my list and see if there's anything in there that I scan too superficially when making the preselection. Helps me keep a good idea of what's in there in my head.
April 28, 2012 at 15:55 |
Nicole
Nicole
Occasionally I will put a circle (not a dot, but small enough to fill in to make a big dot) on an item I write at the end or spot on the list that I know NEEDS to be done soon and that I might not get done on time using just the rules. By "soon" I mean either the next time I create a ladder or that same day. Which one of these sort of depends on the ladder I am currently working or what time of day it is, scheduled appointments, etc..
Since I always start at the end of the list when working a ladder after completing a task, it gets looked at frequently. If necessary, I can always fill in the dot and do it if I'm coming up on a deadline. Otherwise, it gets dotted or not per The Question each time I make a ladder.
The hard part is to only do this with things that truly NEED to be done in that very short timeline. Sometimes I catch myself getting ready to mark a task just because I want to do it. Then I just tell myself to follow the rules knowing that if that desire is anything other than a whim, the task will be on the next ladder anyway.
I think I've only done this for 2-3 tasks in a week and I probably started doing this about 3 weeks ago. So it isn't a long test, but it's kept me out of trouble a couple of times I think. In any case, it's reduced my fear that I would get sidetracked and miss doing something on time that was necessary. Either way, that seems like success in my book.
Since I always start at the end of the list when working a ladder after completing a task, it gets looked at frequently. If necessary, I can always fill in the dot and do it if I'm coming up on a deadline. Otherwise, it gets dotted or not per The Question each time I make a ladder.
The hard part is to only do this with things that truly NEED to be done in that very short timeline. Sometimes I catch myself getting ready to mark a task just because I want to do it. Then I just tell myself to follow the rules knowing that if that desire is anything other than a whim, the task will be on the next ladder anyway.
I think I've only done this for 2-3 tasks in a week and I probably started doing this about 3 weeks ago. So it isn't a long test, but it's kept me out of trouble a couple of times I think. In any case, it's reduced my fear that I would get sidetracked and miss doing something on time that was necessary. Either way, that seems like success in my book.
April 28, 2012 at 17:27 |
MartyH
MartyH
I don't use any tags.
April 28, 2012 at 18:30 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<< I write a task "read entire list" and dot it>>
That does sound like a good idea, Nicole. I often do get that nagging feeling - have I missed out on anything in my scan? And this usually happens when a particular chain takes a long time to complete. Adding that "scan list" task to the existing chain would give you a chance to come up for air, check the surroundings, and dive back in again, and sometimes adding an urgent item to the existing chain which was missed.
I haven't found the need to tag. Tagging to me denotes urgency or priority of some sort, so anything tag-worthy is dot-worthy and would be in my chain of dotted tasks.
That does sound like a good idea, Nicole. I often do get that nagging feeling - have I missed out on anything in my scan? And this usually happens when a particular chain takes a long time to complete. Adding that "scan list" task to the existing chain would give you a chance to come up for air, check the surroundings, and dive back in again, and sometimes adding an urgent item to the existing chain which was missed.
I haven't found the need to tag. Tagging to me denotes urgency or priority of some sort, so anything tag-worthy is dot-worthy and would be in my chain of dotted tasks.
April 28, 2012 at 19:45 |
JD
JD
JD: Coming up for air is an appropriate description!
April 28, 2012 at 23:54 |
Nicole
Nicole
I don't use any tags - I find tagging interferes with the natural ability of my mind to pick out what should be done. However I do have a regular task "Weed list" which means deleting anything which isn't relevant or which distracts from my focus. Doing this requires careful consideration of all the tasks on the list and as well as getting rid of the dross enables me to re-balance my assessment of those remaining.
April 29, 2012 at 9:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I do tag, but for context rather than priority or urgency. I did try using a tag called “!NB” for “Urgent & Important” tasks but found it to be unnecessary as FV causes these tasks to stand out anyway.
I like to use context tags because I use one list for everything. If I’m at work I can save time by filtering out tasks which need to be done at home and vice versa. It also works nicely for errands and the like.
I like to use context tags because I use one list for everything. If I’m at work I can save time by filtering out tasks which need to be done at home and vice versa. It also works nicely for errands and the like.
April 29, 2012 at 16:53 |
Geoff
Geoff
I don't like using tags. Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a picky person, so I tend to over analyze things like what type of tag to use, what tag best describes this task, which tasks should get these tags. Then when sorting I think of which order should these tags be in, which tags should I do before etc. My brain tends to ask more unnecessary nitpicky questions when I use tags and I just can't stop it. :) So for those reasons, I have learnt that tags are just not for me.
It seems weird but I like my list unorganized without any sorting or categories or tagging. Then the only skill I need is to scan effectively, and just allow my gut instinct/ intuition to determine on how things go together or are connected or deserves more attention than others. I trust myself and the system more that way. I kind of trust that if my brain retained information about a task from a previous scan, then naturally over time I will just know the best strategy about how to batch tasks together, or which tasks to focus on more next time.
Long story short, I don't use tags because they tend to generate pickiness, I never seem satisfied with the grouping of tasks and they distract me from doing things. Instead my solution is to just scan frequently from top to bottom, do the few tasks that I want, remove the tasks that I don't want. Its simpler and I trust myself more when I know I just have to scan, do, repeat.
It seems weird but I like my list unorganized without any sorting or categories or tagging. Then the only skill I need is to scan effectively, and just allow my gut instinct/ intuition to determine on how things go together or are connected or deserves more attention than others. I trust myself and the system more that way. I kind of trust that if my brain retained information about a task from a previous scan, then naturally over time I will just know the best strategy about how to batch tasks together, or which tasks to focus on more next time.
Long story short, I don't use tags because they tend to generate pickiness, I never seem satisfied with the grouping of tasks and they distract me from doing things. Instead my solution is to just scan frequently from top to bottom, do the few tasks that I want, remove the tasks that I don't want. Its simpler and I trust myself more when I know I just have to scan, do, repeat.
April 29, 2012 at 17:41 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW, I've had the same experience. To steal from your writing above,
The old me:
<<... I tend to over analyze things like what type of tag to use, what tag best describes this task, which tasks should get these tags. Then when sorting I think of which order should these tags be in, which tags should I do before etc. My brain tends to ask more unnecessary nitpicky questions when I use tags ... >>
The new me (after using these Forster-style unorganized lists daily for over a year):
<<... I like my list unorganized without any sorting or categories or tagging. Then the only skill I need is to scan effectively, and just allow my gut instinct/ intuition to determine on how things go together or are connected or deserves more attention than others. I trust myself and the system more that way. I kind of trust that if my brain retained information about a task from a previous scan, then naturally over time I will just know ...>>
Well, I'm not 100% up to speed with this instinct/intuition, but it sure is better than before. Much nicer to have a simple system that mostly works than a textbook albatross (GTD) that never gets off the ground!
The old me:
<<... I tend to over analyze things like what type of tag to use, what tag best describes this task, which tasks should get these tags. Then when sorting I think of which order should these tags be in, which tags should I do before etc. My brain tends to ask more unnecessary nitpicky questions when I use tags ... >>
The new me (after using these Forster-style unorganized lists daily for over a year):
<<... I like my list unorganized without any sorting or categories or tagging. Then the only skill I need is to scan effectively, and just allow my gut instinct/ intuition to determine on how things go together or are connected or deserves more attention than others. I trust myself and the system more that way. I kind of trust that if my brain retained information about a task from a previous scan, then naturally over time I will just know ...>>
Well, I'm not 100% up to speed with this instinct/intuition, but it sure is better than before. Much nicer to have a simple system that mostly works than a textbook albatross (GTD) that never gets off the ground!
April 29, 2012 at 18:15 |
Bernie
Bernie
I've started developing similar habits in other ways, as well.
For paper: I used to create labeled file folders for everything. I still do have a few of those, particularly for important documents, but now almost everything goes into a "2012" folder. When it fills up, I will start a "2012 - 2" folder. I've done this for a year or so. Works great. Very few things need more organization than that.
Same with my completed tasks in OneNote. I used to want to organize things for future reference. Now I mostly just file them away in a single archive folder. OneNote can find these things really fast with a quick search.
Same with email in Outlook. It all goes into an "Archive 2012" folder. Of course, Gmail works the same way. You can add structure if you want, but the less structure, the better.
My main job at work involves information modeling. I've been applying the same principles there. (Also finding that this is becoming an industry "best practice"). Don't create extra taxonomy that you don't really need. Don't create taxonomy just because you can. The taxonomy requires an overhead to create and maintain, and more often than not, just gets in the way, since the fast pace of change in today's world makes most taxonomies outdated as soon as they are released.
Instead, keep taxonomic classifications as generic as possible -- only get more specific if there is real pressure to do so and a clear ROI. All those tags and categories and structures create a LOT of overhead and must be maintained. If I am going to spend time on that, there must be a clear return on investment. Don't create extra taxonomy if it will only create overhead.
Same with managing files on my PC.
I am sure this is extensible to even more areas.
All our gadgets today make it so easy to create tags and categories and structure. It gives a false sense of order and structure. It masks the chaos that is hiding underneath.
FV is the opposite. I'll bet all our FV lists *look* like chaos. Lots of random things all thrown together in a big pile. But because of the processing rules, it has a powerful hidden order and structure. And the overhead is very very small. Like David Allen likes to say: "As simple as possible, but no simpler." (Wow, I really wish he would come look at this website!)
For paper: I used to create labeled file folders for everything. I still do have a few of those, particularly for important documents, but now almost everything goes into a "2012" folder. When it fills up, I will start a "2012 - 2" folder. I've done this for a year or so. Works great. Very few things need more organization than that.
Same with my completed tasks in OneNote. I used to want to organize things for future reference. Now I mostly just file them away in a single archive folder. OneNote can find these things really fast with a quick search.
Same with email in Outlook. It all goes into an "Archive 2012" folder. Of course, Gmail works the same way. You can add structure if you want, but the less structure, the better.
My main job at work involves information modeling. I've been applying the same principles there. (Also finding that this is becoming an industry "best practice"). Don't create extra taxonomy that you don't really need. Don't create taxonomy just because you can. The taxonomy requires an overhead to create and maintain, and more often than not, just gets in the way, since the fast pace of change in today's world makes most taxonomies outdated as soon as they are released.
Instead, keep taxonomic classifications as generic as possible -- only get more specific if there is real pressure to do so and a clear ROI. All those tags and categories and structures create a LOT of overhead and must be maintained. If I am going to spend time on that, there must be a clear return on investment. Don't create extra taxonomy if it will only create overhead.
Same with managing files on my PC.
I am sure this is extensible to even more areas.
All our gadgets today make it so easy to create tags and categories and structure. It gives a false sense of order and structure. It masks the chaos that is hiding underneath.
FV is the opposite. I'll bet all our FV lists *look* like chaos. Lots of random things all thrown together in a big pile. But because of the processing rules, it has a powerful hidden order and structure. And the overhead is very very small. Like David Allen likes to say: "As simple as possible, but no simpler." (Wow, I really wish he would come look at this website!)
April 29, 2012 at 19:29 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Bernie:
I think I may have slightly exaggerated. I don't just know 100% what to do from my instincts. After all, I still need to refer to my list. I think its necessary for me to just scan frequently and refresh my commitments in my mind.
I suppose this 'skill' came from the practice from AF and finding tasks which just 'stood out'. When I first read the rules for AF, I thought the 'standing out' was complete nonsense and rediculous. I was certain I had to organize something, tag something, strategize something. But in practice, its just not the case. Regardless of how much organization you put into the system, the final stage is a choice to do it or not. I suppose categorizing helps/prepares you for this choice to some extent, but I found it much easier to just choose based on what 'stands out'/'feels ready'. I can't describe exactly what that means, but I would say, the 'standing out' just comes from your gut feeling/instincts above anything else.
The majority of the time, I rarely forget what is important/urgent. On the other hand, I do forget whats not important/ not urgent. So to me, this is an indicator that what I retain from my scans puts me on the right track and what I forget still puts me on the right track. In other words, if my mind hasn't retained some task after frequent scans, then most likely it just not even anything to be concerned with and it can wait or even be removed from my list. That's what I really meant from trusting my intuition/gut instincts.
Since you brought up GTD, I can't quite remember but I think somewhere in the four stage criteria: context, time, effort, priority. The effort or priority part (cant quite remember) deals with going with your gut instinct. This always just made sense to me but I kind of ignored it at the time. When you think of it, you don't really need the context, time, effort or priority at all. You know (common sense will tell you) that you have to pick up groceries at the market, email someone from your email, call someone at a phone, talk to jim when you see him, clean the kitchen at homw, submit report at work etc. so why bother with all the categorizing in the first place? You can't predict (accurately at least) how much time each task will take, its a guess/estimation. Again, instincts. And I think in the book GTD, is says(something along the lines of) 'you already know your priorities' and 'priorities change', hence why its the last stage. Again, your priorities are already known to some extent. You know whats important/urgent, especially if you review weekly. All of it boils down to your instincts/gut feeling. Whereas, the Forster-style, kind of says 'screw all that, what feels ready to be done/ what stands out' (Sorry for misquoting you Mark :). I know its much deeper than that but thats how I interpreted it in a simplified version. )
Anyways, I'm rambling. The tags to me are unnecessary. I just go with my instincts.
I think I may have slightly exaggerated. I don't just know 100% what to do from my instincts. After all, I still need to refer to my list. I think its necessary for me to just scan frequently and refresh my commitments in my mind.
I suppose this 'skill' came from the practice from AF and finding tasks which just 'stood out'. When I first read the rules for AF, I thought the 'standing out' was complete nonsense and rediculous. I was certain I had to organize something, tag something, strategize something. But in practice, its just not the case. Regardless of how much organization you put into the system, the final stage is a choice to do it or not. I suppose categorizing helps/prepares you for this choice to some extent, but I found it much easier to just choose based on what 'stands out'/'feels ready'. I can't describe exactly what that means, but I would say, the 'standing out' just comes from your gut feeling/instincts above anything else.
The majority of the time, I rarely forget what is important/urgent. On the other hand, I do forget whats not important/ not urgent. So to me, this is an indicator that what I retain from my scans puts me on the right track and what I forget still puts me on the right track. In other words, if my mind hasn't retained some task after frequent scans, then most likely it just not even anything to be concerned with and it can wait or even be removed from my list. That's what I really meant from trusting my intuition/gut instincts.
Since you brought up GTD, I can't quite remember but I think somewhere in the four stage criteria: context, time, effort, priority. The effort or priority part (cant quite remember) deals with going with your gut instinct. This always just made sense to me but I kind of ignored it at the time. When you think of it, you don't really need the context, time, effort or priority at all. You know (common sense will tell you) that you have to pick up groceries at the market, email someone from your email, call someone at a phone, talk to jim when you see him, clean the kitchen at homw, submit report at work etc. so why bother with all the categorizing in the first place? You can't predict (accurately at least) how much time each task will take, its a guess/estimation. Again, instincts. And I think in the book GTD, is says(something along the lines of) 'you already know your priorities' and 'priorities change', hence why its the last stage. Again, your priorities are already known to some extent. You know whats important/urgent, especially if you review weekly. All of it boils down to your instincts/gut feeling. Whereas, the Forster-style, kind of says 'screw all that, what feels ready to be done/ what stands out' (Sorry for misquoting you Mark :). I know its much deeper than that but thats how I interpreted it in a simplified version. )
Anyways, I'm rambling. The tags to me are unnecessary. I just go with my instincts.
April 29, 2012 at 19:37 |
GMBW
GMBW
Seraphim, I agree with you on file by year rather than detailed.
If I expect to need it, I'll spend more time filing it. Most things, though, are worth only the few seconds it takes to drop in this year's folder. On the rare occasion I need something, I can find it in 5 minutes, grand total 15 minutes searching per year.
Early in the new year I spend an hour or two sorting the old year a bit better. All the phone bills together, checked for missing, stapled, schlepped to the basement until I'm comfortable throwing them out. (I'm a pack-rat, sigh.)
On my computer, I'll leave them unsorted until I start work on a project, then I'll search and bring them all together. That's still faster than filing each one as it comes in.
I need tags for tasks. Without them, I still get caught wanting to do something in the early list more than I want to finish the chain and start the next chain with more things I want to do earlier.
If I expect to need it, I'll spend more time filing it. Most things, though, are worth only the few seconds it takes to drop in this year's folder. On the rare occasion I need something, I can find it in 5 minutes, grand total 15 minutes searching per year.
Early in the new year I spend an hour or two sorting the old year a bit better. All the phone bills together, checked for missing, stapled, schlepped to the basement until I'm comfortable throwing them out. (I'm a pack-rat, sigh.)
On my computer, I'll leave them unsorted until I start work on a project, then I'll search and bring them all together. That's still faster than filing each one as it comes in.
I need tags for tasks. Without them, I still get caught wanting to do something in the early list more than I want to finish the chain and start the next chain with more things I want to do earlier.
April 29, 2012 at 22:36 |
Cricket
Cricket
Nicole & MartyH, seems I'm not alone in tagging/highlighting priority tasks in FV. ;-)
Seraphim, Mark, GMBW & Bernie, I get the feeling that I should strive for tagless FV too. However, I'm finding words are not enough to trigger wanting/before for some tasks. I need some colours/highlighting to help them "shine". Maybe it's the way my brains is wired. Anyway, I've added "Weed list" to my FV list too, and will see whether that trumps "Tagged tasks".
Geoff, I do tag for context (Office-General, Home-Errands ++) as well, though in this thread I'm more looking at tagging/highlighting those to-be-urgent/priority tasks so they're a bit more likely to be included in the preselecting dotted list.
Cricket, tags for context/classifications or for highlighting/priority?
OT: I agree filing/categorizing by year/date is the least overhead, with almost as much functionality as categories that no longer exactly match current realities.
Seraphim, Mark, GMBW & Bernie, I get the feeling that I should strive for tagless FV too. However, I'm finding words are not enough to trigger wanting/before for some tasks. I need some colours/highlighting to help them "shine". Maybe it's the way my brains is wired. Anyway, I've added "Weed list" to my FV list too, and will see whether that trumps "Tagged tasks".
Geoff, I do tag for context (Office-General, Home-Errands ++) as well, though in this thread I'm more looking at tagging/highlighting those to-be-urgent/priority tasks so they're a bit more likely to be included in the preselecting dotted list.
Cricket, tags for context/classifications or for highlighting/priority?
OT: I agree filing/categorizing by year/date is the least overhead, with almost as much functionality as categories that no longer exactly match current realities.
April 30, 2012 at 3:34 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
Like I said, I don't do it often. If I was doing a lot of computer work or got involved in a computer-based task, I would likely put a note on my screen and not mark my FV list. These circles serve much the same purpose while not really affecting the process.
Its for those things that I'm afraid might sneak up on me during the day; not for prioritizing my list.
Its for those things that I'm afraid might sneak up on me during the day; not for prioritizing my list.
April 30, 2012 at 4:20 |
MartyH
MartyH
MartyH, similarly when I'm at my desk I'm as likely to "highlight" these priority tasks on my daily jot paper near my mouse/mug, rather than messing with "tagging/highlighting" in my FV list. The jot paper puts these tasks more in my face, each time I look down to move my mouse/mug.
Come to think of it yellow sticky notes on my computer screen per Marks comment http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1807438#post1808079 is even more in my face. For some reason I never liked to put sticky notes on my screens. Mmm ...
Come to think of it yellow sticky notes on my computer screen per Marks comment http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1807438#post1808079 is even more in my face. For some reason I never liked to put sticky notes on my screens. Mmm ...
April 30, 2012 at 4:57 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
When I mark the list with a small circle, it seems less like messing with things than the other ways. I guess I really use the least intrusive way of looking out for these things. Maybe its just that I do it so seldom that it seems do have the desired outcome of keeping the item in my mind.
April 30, 2012 at 5:04 |
MartyH
MartyH
Sabre23t, I like your mention of a jot paper. I do the same. It has a scheduling element to it for tasks which are somewhat time sensitive but don’t warrant diarising.
April 30, 2012 at 8:02 |
Geoff
Geoff
sabre23t, I use them for both urgency/priority and for context. The only permanent context is errands, since I only have two locations: Home and Errands. If I need another, though, I'm willing to add it.
There's another risk with tagging by urgency/priority: When I'm done the stars for the moment, it's easy to say, "I'm done!" and waste the rest of the day rather than work on low-urgency tasks. Forewarned is forearmed in this case. Each day, the oldest actioned project gets attention, whether it's starred or not.
There's another risk with tagging by urgency/priority: When I'm done the stars for the moment, it's easy to say, "I'm done!" and waste the rest of the day rather than work on low-urgency tasks. Forewarned is forearmed in this case. Each day, the oldest actioned project gets attention, whether it's starred or not.
April 30, 2012 at 15:54 |
Cricket
Cricket
My "tagging" or "highlighting" doesn't change anything about the tasks other than visibility of them in the FV list. So I don't consider this really a tweak. Just that these priority tasks are now more visible during pre-selecting scan, and gets a bit more consideration while questioning "What I Want To Do Before I Do X?"
Recently I also added a task called "Tagged tasks" to my FV list. When this task is selected for doing, I would look at all tagged tasks and consider whether any of them have become "very urgent" and require immediate dotting and moving to end of list. Is this already into tweak zone? Anyone doing something similar?
Searching "FV - THE 1 MONTH OPINION POLL" thread I don't see any mention of either.