Dwight: 

I should explain that there is a school of thought (which I picked up from 
GTD forums elsewhere & possibly from David A himself) that you shouldn't 
sort AT ALL. ...And that priority should be something that comes purely 
from the human mind having repeated eye-balled everything you are currently 
trying to do ASAP.

I know that this won't work for me but I am trying to give myself room to 
experiment using various modes of establishing priority at once...

Lisa:
Did you know something can be a folder and a project?
Yes I spotted that. However ticking the Project box on a folder didn't seem 
to make any difference in my reports...(!) 

Either way, for now, as above, I am planning to completely abandoning 
folders. It will be interesting to see how far I get without them. Watch 
this space...

A



On Friday, December 5, 2014 9:03:35 AM UTC, Dwight Arthur wrote:
>
> Hi, John.
>
> Sounds like a different and interesting way of managing tasks with MLO. I 
> look forward to hearing more as you progress.
>
>  
>
> The only reason for importance and urgency is for use in sorting your 
> tasks. If I understand correctly you will be manually sorting (ie physical 
> sort) which would mean that neither of these fields matter, except insofar 
> as the data is helpful to you yourself. My thoughts (drawn from life, not 
> software) is that people tend to allocate too much energy to urgent tasks 
> that may be unimportant and not enough to important tasks that are not 
> urgent. Coding these separately help me keep track of this problem.
>
> -Dwight
>
>  
>
> *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto:
> [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *John Smith
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:47 PM
> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:>
> *Subject:* Re: [MLO] Quirk: "Next Action by Folder" happening in "Next 
> Action by Project" view.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Dwight: 
>
>  
>
> > how can MLO provide any tools you need
>
> OK, I do find this quirk somewhat bizarre, particularly as Actions in the 
> root directory it self (i.e. not in any folder) do cheerfully appear... but 
> yes, I do hear you. 
>
>
> I am poised ready to pivot. 
>
>  
>
> I need to simplify what I have so that I can actually get on and use it in 
> the short term!
>
>  
> Here is my new plan:
>
> 1. No Folders 
> I think I'm just going to get rid of folders completely - they just seem 
> to get in the way. (Maybe I'll bring them back eventually I'm not sure). 
> Scrapping Folders will also of course avoid the what I am not allowed to 
> call 'stupid' quirk and allow Next Action by Project to show me both Next 
> Action that do and do not have Projects. And designing new Views will be 
> easier too. 
>
> 2. Physical Sort
> Use the physical sort order to establish some sort of overall priority 
> approximate (this is made possible by the lack of folders)
>
>
> 3. Flags
> Use flags for Context.  I think any action can normally only have one 
> Context. And an item can only have one Flag so that's a good fit. Radical I 
> know, but blame pottster  ;)
>
> 4. Tags
> Use the 'Context' tags to create any hierarchies that I need using the 
> "Context includes Context" feature. 
>
> 5. Priority (Urgency/Importance etc)
>
> a) Physical Sort  [recap I know!]
>
> In the short run I shall use a physical sort to show me what I know I 
> should be doing next
>
> b) Highlight 
>
> I shall also use Control/H so that the eyes can find things without 
> reading 
>
>  
>
> c) Stars
>
> This will be used for "has focus today" - The stuff I think I'm doing 
> today (will try to keep down to c. 5 or so at any one moment)
>
> d)  Important/Urgent fields
> With this structure I should be free to experiment with using the 
> dedicated Important & Urgent fields, plus the clever 
> looking-but-I-only-half-understand-it "Computed-Score" priority.
>
> I now cant yet decide how feasibly it will be to bother to enter both 
> Importance and Urgency fields for everything. But with this structure I 
> shall be free to find out!
>
> I think it will be quite useful to simply allow the physical sort order on 
> the Outline to flow through to some of my views.
>
>  
>
> How mad am I?
>
>  
>
>
> On Friday, December 5, 2014 2:43:06 AM UTC, Dwight Arthur wrote:
>
> I believe that the behavior you are describing is documented in the User 
> Manual section on Next Actions which says “*Note**: If there are Active 
> Tasks without parent project then only first task for each root task is 
> selected.*” The wording is a little stiff but it is completely consistent 
> with the observed behaviour making me believe that it’s all intentional. 
> There’s just one glitch which is this: I believe the statement should have 
> been “*Note**: If there are Active Tasks without parent project then only 
> first task for each root item is selected.*” It’s my opinion that rules 
> like this apply equally to tasks, projects and filters, but the word “task” 
> does not communicate this quite as clearly as “item”.
>
>  
>
> I recognize that this is a case where MLO’s out-of-the-box function 
> differs from what you would prefer. In the long run, that doesn’t matter, 
> what matters is whether you can use the power of MLO to make a view that 
> does what you want. Usually that’s the case though the jury is still out 
> for your version of next actions by project.
>
>  
>
> As an aside, there are MLO users who try to adhere to GTD orthodoxy. And 
> there are those who do something entirely unrelated to GTD. A lot of us, 
> though, use something personal and idiosyncratic that’s inspired by GTD. So 
> when you find a case where MLO’s default action differs from your 
> understanding of GTD orthodoxy, that does not necessarily justify changing 
> MLO’s action to be more nearly compliant. That’s because there are some 
> users out there who are counting on the existing functionality. I have been 
> stung several times (and the developers I’m sure have been stung even more) 
> by proposing clear improvements in MLO functionality only to face a chorus 
> of angry protests from fans of the prior functionality.
>
>  
>
> So the better question to ask is, how can MLO provide any tools you need 
> but don’t have that will let you build your dream view.
>
>  
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On 
> Behalf Of *John Smith
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:59 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [MLO] Quirk: "Next Action by Folder" happening in "Next Action 
> by Project" view.
>
>  
>
> Hi 
>
>  
>
> [ASIDE: OK I am still smarting... but apologies are accepted where given. 
> From my side I am happy to apologise for my the *tone* of some of my 
> earlier remarks. OK let's move on.]
>
>  
>
> I have discovered a rather fundamental "weirdness" of the system. [Fwiw, 
> in order to confirm this weirdness I have started again with an empty 
> dataset.]
>
> So if you have a collection of tasks in the root directory, to which you 
> have not yet had time to allocated into any Project yet, then if you go to 
> the standard "Next Action by Project" you will see those tasks listed at 
> the top of the page, where it calls them "Projects: (none)".  
>
> Ah but not so fast, this only works in the root directory. And if those 
> Tasks are moved into a directory of any sort, guess what? They all 
> disappear from this "Next Action by Project" view! 
>
>  
>
> WTF? 
>
> At least *most* of them disappear. Because it turns out the the first 
> task with the folder *does* stay visible after all. But only the first in 
> that directory - all the others disappear. 
>
> So it's almost as if MLO is treating a Folder as if it were a Project. 
> i.e. MLO is 'filtering in' the Next Action within the Folder *as if* it 
> were finding the Next Action within a Project. Now, if I had ticked the 
> "This is a project" box on the directory then that would make perfect 
> sense. However the "This is a project" box is emphatically *not* ticked!
>
>  
>
> For reasons of diplomacy I shall resist the urge to call this a "bug", but 
> surely it is pretty unexpected.
>
>  
>
> Background:
>
> As we all know, one of the core GTD concepts "Next Action". And so this 
> "Next Action by Project" is likely to be one of the most important screens 
> to anyone trying to implement GTD. I certainly intend to spend a lot of 
> time there. 
>
>  
>
> Either way, surely we don't want to see "Next Action by *Folder*" because 
> the folders are just supposed to be merely containers for subject areas and 
> they do not indicate that something is actually a live Project!
>
>  
>
> I find this to be quite a fundamental problem. I mean if you use folders a 
> lot and you have a lot of one-off type Actions to which you have not yet 
> bothered to put into projects, then whenever you try to work from the "Next 
> Action by Project" view of the world, all your Actions will disappear - All 
> except one per folder!
>
> P.S. Now there is a solution to this anomaly which is, similar to what I 
> mentioned in another thread, which is that if you convert your Actions 
> without projects into Projects then they are 'forced' to appear in this 
> "Next Actions by Project" review. But this is definitely a fudge because in 
> GTD theory you need to work tasks very differently if they are an action 
> compared to if they are a project.
>
>  
>
> Surely this "Next Action by Folder" cant be something anyone designed into 
> the system on purpose. And surely it is unwanted, no?
>
>  
>
> Either way, I am curious. Has nobody else discovered this 'quirk' ? 
>
>  
>
> And if so, how to you get around it?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MyLifeOrganized" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/684754e3-0bdf-4dc8-80b7-8d659052c1eb%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/684754e3-0bdf-4dc8-80b7-8d659052c1eb%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MyLifeOrganized" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 
> <javascript:>.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/520cd10c-e71c-4559-b0ac-3be059b5f56b%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/520cd10c-e71c-4559-b0ac-3be059b5f56b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MyLifeOrganized" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/f32ab095-06b8-4194-845c-7fddbca19174%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to