To answer my own question - at first glance, the impact of ticking the Weekly Goal box looks to be the same as before.
On Jan 30, 3:20 pm, Richard C <[email protected]> wrote: > The whole thread is here:http://bit.ly/cOxgv7 > > Doing a skim re-read, there was one issue which the computed score > author said he would raise with Andrey but which as far as I can see, > there was no further post about - namely whether the Weekly Goal boost > would continue to apply a substantial boost. > > [Aside: as one of the people who argued strongly for the manual sort > because I could never get either of the sort algorithms to work for me > because of the way in which priority appeared to be boosted for lower > level tasks, I subsequently found that using CSA without the weekly > goal boost (as recommended by somebody in this forum) resolved the > problem. CSA without the Weekly Goal boost works pretty well for > me. If you do the Weekly Goal on CSA you get a very strong depth > related boost such that you can never get leaf tasks which are higher > in the hierarchy to sort above other tasks which share the same Weekly > Goal parent but which are lower in the hierarch) > > On Jan 30, 2:59 pm, Richard C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There was a long thread about this in the summer - here's an extract: > > > Here's the enhancements that were planned: > > > 0) Made it faster never hurts to protect our PPC user's batteries. > > > 1) Added the ability to turn off the over-due boosting via a > > preference. > > tasks will not use the more aggressive calculation when over due > > if this is disabled. (consider it the "don't nag me if > > procrastinate" > > option) > > > 2) Made it possible to have due and start date weighting factors of > > ZERO > > or to out right disable them. > > > 3) Change the computations for the duedate=startdate condition. > > When start=due now the start acts only as a snooze function > > and only the due date calculation is used. Old logical / code, > > was using the start <> due calculation but was convoluted so > > bad that you couldn't tell when you read the code; and it only > > threw things out of whack on very deep outlines. > > > 4) Fixed the miss handling of the startdate with nodue date > > condition. > > Startdate now acts a a snooze only; previously the algorithm > > treated this by using the StartDate as the DUE date; this > > happened > > when it became possible to have NO Due Date. Most people > > assume no due date means finish this task some day but who > > cares when; the algorithm is now designed to think that way about > > this case as well. > > > 5) Made some structural changes that make it much much > > easier to adapt as MLO evolves in the future. > > > On Jan 28, 7:46 pm, Bill Higgs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see in the change log that: > > > > •change: computed-score To-Do sorting algorithm has been improved. > > > Thanks to Bob Pankratz for the new update! > > > > •change: Outlook sync with latest version of GTD Add-in has been > > > improved. Thanks to Josh Powell for his effort here! > > > > Can you expand on what was changed? > > > > Bill Higgs- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized?hl=en.
