Get Everything Done

For the last 13 days, I have kept a long list using Simple Scanning. The list has grown to 138 items that are not crossed out. I am beginning for the first time to tire of reading the whole list, and am getting overwhelmed with the length, and wonder if there is value to setting a limit on the number of items on the list, let's say 100 items, so when 100 is reached, I can only add an item after deleting another one.
This would be easy to number by computer, but don't know how to do it manually using a notebook.
Anyone tried this? Is it worth it? I am not sure if tracking this would take away from the speed of executing.

Someone recently reposted about Andreas' Dead Simple Auto Focus (DSAF). Its main feature was dismissing everything from 2 weeks ago, while still highlighting items or bringing key items forward that you want to work on. I did this to my long personal list and it felt quite freeing to have a smaller batch of items to deal with that was more focused on what I'm doing now than what occupied me 6 weeks ago.

Mark H:
Personally, I don’t think that is the right approach. Assuming all the items on the list have to be done at some point, then deferring them won’t achieve anything towards getting the tasks done. If you think about it, simple scanning and really all other systems just decide the order in which you do the tasks.
I suggest the best approach is to allocate enough time each day so you get all the task done in a reasonable timescale. I also get overwhelmed if the list is too long so I always start at the oldest and work through (more or less a blinkered approach). For me I'm in a great position where for a long time now the oldest tasks are rarely older that a few days. I found simple scanning for me resulting in all the quick & easy tasks being done as I loved the feeling of high productivity but then a whole bunch of long and difficult tasks bunched together causing procrastination. They just got older and older. Simple scanning is great for keeping on top of a long list as it picks out the urgent ones so there are advantages. However, I prefer now just to work on the oldest and try to ignore urgent tasks as they knock out the schedule and put everything else back. Anyway why should anything be treated as urgent jumping the queue if it can’t be cleared in a few days anyway. Downside of doing oldest tasks – there really is no hiding from those difficult tasks you just don’t want to do, but it sorts out the men from the boys! At least they are spread out a bit.

On reading the last post of Mark Forster on the thread Dreams, AF, and Intuition some questions come to mind, and they pertain to my original post.

What determines what gets on the long list in the first place? What separates an item on the long list from one that is not on? At the point of writing an item on the list a thought process is involved, a decision is made. Can we define what it is, or is it just that someone wants to put it on the list (intuition?) or wants to pay attention to it?
Perhaps there have been thorough comparisons of GTD and Mark Forster, but briefly -

David Allen in GTD lists five steps:
1. Capturing
2. Clarifying
3. Organizing
4. Reviewing
5. Engaging

In capturing, he includes taking notes, mind dump, etc.
In clarifying, he recommends asking "Is it actionable?", and recommends not mixing notes with actions, but to separate them.
David Allen seems to limit "action" to a physical, observable action. Yet thinking, planning, brainstorming, deciding, might not observable. David Allen puts these in the steps of clarifying and organizing. He recommends doing a weekly review, and reviewing weekly a Someday/Maybe list.
It seems the difference between GTD and Mark Forster's long lists is that Mark Forster minimizes the upfront steps of clarifying and organizing, and does the steps as needed during the process of working the list, and extends the review (or as David Allen also calls it "reflecting") step, so one is constantly if not daily reviewing the long list. This avoids the downside of GTD. However, this constant review seems to be a necessary tradeoff. The downside is that the long list can become too long and impractical to review. If so, then we need to park some items elsewhere, which was done during the clarifying and organizing steps in David Allen's method. .
So is it useful to limit the size of the long list? Do we do it at the start before we enter an item on the list? Or when an item is dismissed, and weeded out, as in a survival of the fittest?
We could decide not to put routine items on the long list, and if needed write them elsewhere. Or any short lists go elsewhere. Or any items that we continue to procrastinate on get taken off the list and treated separately.

IIRC in the heydays of the GTD craze a constant complaint was the super long @computer list.

Later on Michael Linenberger's work became popular featuring a 20 task limit for the actions list. Real Autofocus is a Long List system which limits the list similarly to Linenberger's stuff based on dates.

DWM has automatic dismissal. David Alles said he sometimes ditches his Someday / Maybe list and just starts a new one.

So, in any case Mark's Long List systems are not alone with that problem.

If your list gets longer and longer, that means a lot of areas in your life are not clarified. With clarity comes focus. Focus in the sense of narrowing down activity to a few well-chosen projects.

If you finish some tangible work in an area, you get a better sense of what is possible and not so much "pipe dreaming" arrives on the list.

It is also a sign of greed vs humility, if you can't say "no" and want to do all that work.

An object of fascination can also be dealt with by making a note about it and be done with it.

Regardless of how long your list is, if it keeps growing you are taking on too much. This is the old DIT adage "incoming work should be the same with outgoing work on average." This means an DIT-style "commitments audit" is in order.

If your list is just long, but stays more or less at the same lenght, then maybe you can shorten it by organizing some part of your work a bit tighter. Meaning, you gather related tasks and put them on a project plan.

Key is to scan the list very fast. If the list is long but stable, this should suffice. The scanning itself is already doing work, since you are prompting your brain to get on with the inner process regarding those tasks.

Scanning fatigue is also a price you pay for not trusting the process. Just scan the list! Fast. And then work on what stands out. Trust that that is a ever better choice.

It occurs to me rather than keep a count of items, one could have a rule that before you add an item you have to remove an item, either by completing it or dismissing it. Then you could have a rule that each day you must review each page of the long list, and either complete at least one item on each page and remove it, or if you rewrite it some work or clarification needs to be done, or you need to dismiss at least one item.
I haven't done it yet, but this might help keep the list from growing too long.