Get Everything Done

In the "no question" method, are we to interpret "standing out" as meaning "standing out more than the last task selected"?

The comparative element seems necessary to make the algorithm possible.

I am having difficulty with the standing out principle as too many of the items on my list is standing out.

< As I said in another thread, this makes it more like a version of AF1 than a version of FP/FPV. In fact I'm thinking of calling it AFP (AutoFocus Perfected). >

Mark: Good point. As in AF, do you feel there is value in bringing back dismissal and closure of items and pages?

<I've not found any need so far. I've only got one outstanding item on my first 7 pages and that is scheduled to be the next thing I do!

What I do use a lot is the task "Weed List". >

My experience so far is my list is not getting longer quickly like it seemed to with AF, I gues the algorithm is kicking in...

I like the idea of 'designing out' rules etc that are not needed, funny how Often I seem to want to add features in!

I'm unclear about how to do the scanning when you get to the bottom of the list - when nothing else stands out between the last task done and the end. So I go back to the previous selected item (the next unactioned selected item up the page) - but where do I scan then?

I am using the same list for work and home. So far it's working fine, and just as well as the myriad of productivity systems I've used in the past. My list has gotten fairly long as it's starting to look like a page of work, then a page of home, and then work, and so on. I feel comfortable that there's a lot of tasks to go through in case I run into extra time at work. (My job is a little boring so having extra stuff to do is a boon.)

Also, the way FVP (or whatever the questionless version should be called) keeps me near the end of the list is the only way working with such a long list is feasible.

I am ending up with dotted items from work that I now have to look at when I'm home on my day off, but those will simply end up at the end of the list and it's kind of telling me that I'm "dotting" too many work tasks for my limited time at work.

I'm probably collecting too much stuff on the list too since I have to scan through those same items that I never end up "dotting". Also, this might be a good thing since the system is forcing me to really look at those things and make decisions.

Man, I haven't even addressed the "standing out problem" that most people seem to have in recognizing it. I don't really worry about it, honestly, as the first item on my list is "dotted", so I'll eventually work on that, and if I can't, it gets rewritten and there's the next item.

Too long of a post! Sorry. Coffee.

[I hope this post doesn't appear twice - I made an earlier attempt, which seems to have vanished.]

@ Mark Forster

> The answer is exactly the same as for Michael B's query.

> That is to say you go back to the previously selected item, do it, and only then scan to the end of the list.

This may seem to some people to be too boring to be going on about. Apologies, but it's
a stumbling-block for me.

My problem is that there seems to be no rationale for scanning only the end of the list when the comparative question is dropped.

It made sense when using a question: assuming no change in preferences, there's nowhere a new selection can appear except below the last task done.

But if you're just looking for something that newly stands out after doing the last task, it can appear anywhere in the list.

I can continue using the question "What stands out more than X?" and the system is working fine for me. So you'll probably tell me to continue doing what works for me. But I'm curious to know what my mistake is.

@ Chris

> My problem is that there seems to be no rationale for scanning only the end of the list when the comparative question is dropped.

I've been using the no-question for a few days, and for me, it's working much better than the question version. I haven't been experiencing burnout like I used to with the "want" question and consistent with Mark's experience, scanning is much quicker without a question.

I speculate that there are two effects occurring. One, by scanning only from the last completed item, you tend to bias it towards the end of the list. I feel that this helps keep up momentum on tasks.

Two, and this is more pure conjecture, I believe that the standing out principle works on something similar to the question. Instead of comparing only to the last item, your mind may be comparing to some set-point of 'readiness'. If that's the case, the dotted selections would still continue to act as a heap and minimize the amount of scanning you need to do, since you'd only scan the items that could be 'more ready' than the item previously selected.

Michael B. said :

If you have 10 tasks dotted from the previous night that are now all irrelevant to your new day and need re-prioritizing, how are you handling this re-prioritization aside from crossing them all out and re-writing them at the end or using pencil or book darts for your dots?


I use a pencil to dot. Every morning when I get to work, I rub all dots and start over.

@Mark Forster

Thanks, Mark, but I understand that point. The puzzle is scanning the bottom of the list, which is now arbitrary - why not the top or middle?

If working with no question, is there still a reason for dotting the first task on the list? I can't think of one.

Chris Cooper,

I think I agree with you in theory. It's a trade-off between speed and a guaranteed perfect sort.

Except that the guarantee is imperfect because the choices are each imperfect. And although in theory, any more "standy out" tasks below the one you just completed should already have been done (because they stood out at the previous pass). In practice, new tasks get added and need to be ranked against the most standy out so far.

Regards,

Will

I have found that "standing out" can happen differently according to the state of mind I am in.

Background :
I work in the automotive industry, in a big company's purchasing department.
My work is a mix of long term tasks, urgent tasks, extremely urgent tasks, and meetings.
I work for several projects which urgency phases can overlap sometimes.
I don't enjoy my job as much as I would like to, and my desk is in a noisy open space.

So appart from changing jobs, I have to deal with schedules that I don't have complete control on, and a rather unmotivating environment. A good recipe to enchance my natural tendancy to procrastinate.

DIT, Autofocus, and particularly FV and FVP, have helped me get more control on my workload than before.

I need a question.
I have found that in my situation, just using the "standing out" process leads me to mainly deal with tasks I like, and completely disregard tasks I resist, until they are same day urgent, or overdue. So my stress level stays high.

I need a constraint to oblige me to tackle unpleasant tasks soon enough.
Comparing previous systems :
GTD : to complicated, I found myself spending the day organising my tasks, and doing none.
DIT : I really like the DIT principle, but it is quite difficult to apply in my case. some of my days are almost full with meetings, incoming work comes at irregular pace, and tasks urgency is irregular as well. I soon found myself with too much backlog to deal with, and having to prioritise by urgency instead of following the rules.
AF1 : brought more flexibility, and obliged me to deal with most tasks, I liked it, but when the list extends to 10+ pages, with only a few unimportant / unurgent / resisting tasks on 70% of the pages, I could not get myself to deal with old pages, when I knew burning stuff was waiting in the 2 last pages.
Next versions brought their lots of improvements, and finally FV made me feel almost in control.
Shortlisting is really the key to keeping me going.
FVP : indeed it is the perfect system for me, with a perfect balance between old and resisting stuff, and the freedom to deal with recent urgent tasks, without breaking the flow.

Now the question of "the question"
I really feel good with the original question (want to do before X)
Trying the "no question" version made me loose control. Items that naturally stand out are just the ones I fell like doing. Not the ones I should be doing.

I recently realised that, for me, using the "want to do before X" question, is like a DIT process, but reduced to 1-2 hours. I limit my chain to 5 tasks maximum, and this become a commitment : it is my WILL DO list for the next 1 to 2 hours. There is much fewer chances that my next hour is disrupted than a full day - which happen too many times when using DIT -.
FVP original questions brings the constraint I liked in DIT, but reduced to a much shorter, manageable, period of time.

Finally, I noticed that depending on the situation, I can change the question to accomodate my day's priority.
Example : when I feel I have too many urgent tasks to do, I select the first task, and then ask myself : what do I have to do Today before X ?
Or when I feel my list is cluttered with many small tasks (I hate long lists, I like to keep my list as short as possible), I ask myself : "before doing X, what task is fast to do and will help me reduce quickly the length of my main list ?"

I sometime change the question to select tasks related to one person in particular, or one subject / project, or one context (eg phone calls), etc....

So what I really appreciate in FVP is that the flow is still the same, but depending on my job's priority or situation, and my energy level or my mood, I can just adapt and still be efficient, by just changing the question.

But above all I need a question. Otherwise, my lazy inner procrastinator just chooses the easiest path, or even sometimes pulls me away from my list.

Interesting.... Just as if you pausing and telling one's self. "now, take this seriously...."
I understand, but feel I need to be more directed.

Actually I think I like to switch my mind between 2 modes. "thinking" mode is for organising and planning, but when I have a selected shortlist, I try to be in a "do" mode, without thinking. ecause thinking drives my away from my current task...

AlexB, this might be a matter of semantics. Like you, I sometimes have a particular agenda in mind when I'm picking my tasks. However, I don't bother putting it into words or applying it to each task one at a time.

I just scan the list and look for things that "stand out" based on specific criteria that matter to me at the moment. Is that what you're doing? I believe this qualifies as "questionless" because it's more instinctive and much easier than the one-at-a-time evaluation that comes with a formal question.

AlexB: "thinking drives me away from my current task... "

I was drawn to Mark's systems for exactly that reason. Too many time management systems provide opportunities for more thought than is necessary. Since I already tend to procrastinate, the last thing I need is a system that gives me an excuse to shuffle, categorize, dissect, analyze, plan, prioritize, tickle, schedule, file, and review tasks to the exclusion of actually doing them.

Of course, if I am really motivated, I can (and have) already tried to do that even with Mark's systems - but I also knew that I was straying significantly from the prescribed process and not really getting anything done. The fewer steps there are between writing the task and doing it, the better.

I understand the mind bending process by ordering our brains to concentrate on one aspect. Indeed, it may just be a question of semantics, but being quite unmotivated at work, I feel that a strict question that I have to obey, works better than letting too much of my intuition drive the task selection process.
I do not have this issue with my home todo list.

I find this interesting, because it is the first time I know a time management system that can help me break through a lack of motivation. (including in the recipe the good old "just open the folder", or "little and often", and the pomodoro sometimes, which help a lot as well)

Very interesting indeed - your brain seems to work almost exactly opposite to mine! When I feel unmotivated, I cannot focus on a strict question. The more direction, control, specificity, etc. in the system, the less effective it is. All I need is something to get me moving. So first I scan down the list for whatever stands out - which will vary according to my mood at the moment.

Once I get started, I can make a more thoughtful selection based on location, context, weather, etc. It's still "standing out," though, because I have to do it quickly. If I go so far as to verbalize the requirement or do comparisons, I get bogged down second-guessing and refining my criteria and my selections. The selection process then takes on a life of its own...

Oddly enough, I need these systems more often at home than at work. At work, the options are sometimes unappealing, but fairly limited. At home, they are overwhelming.

< Oddly enough, I need these systems more often at home than at work. At work, the options are sometimes unappealing, but fairly limited. At home, they are overwhelming. >

Sounds very similar to my world!