Thank you very much, I think that was the problem =). I found that very misleading because the User Guide explicitly states on page 37 that Active Actions must not have a start date or have a start date that has already occurred:
Action Actions... 3) Tasks without a Start Date, or whose Start Date is today or in the past Nevertheless, seems like problem solved--thanks so much! On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:19:18 AM UTC-7, Dwight Arthur wrote: > > Hi, Andrew. I am not 100% sure, but I'm guessing that you have fallen into > the trap involving active status and future start dates. This has been > discussed at length in this forum over the last decade and you can probably > find the discussions by searching the forum. > > Let me ask you one more question: is it possible that in every single case > where an inactive task appears as an unwelcome entry in your view the > task's reason for being inactive is that it has a future start date? If > not, then something else is wrong, please let me know more about it. > > If I have correctly guessed the issue, then here is how you fix it: > Wherever you have coded (ActiveAction) replace it with ((ActiveAction) AND > ((StartDateTime orOrBefore Now) OR (StartDateTime doesNotExist))) > > > ActiveAction ignores the start date in order to enable views like "active > next seven days" > > On 5/21/2016 5:06 PM, Andrew Hwang wrote: > > Can somebody please help with why my filter rules are not working > properly? I've attached the *.ml file above. Thank you! > > On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:41:35 PM UTC-7, Andrew Hwang wrote: >> >> Thank you Bon! >> >> Actually, my advanced filter is successful in accomplishing the aim of >> decluttering my list. (The reason I did not opt for a simple grouping to >> accomplish it is because I'm already grouping my to-do list by flags >> denoting mental energy and time available--normal / "braindead" / >> "pocketwork." So adding a second layer of grouping makes the view >> extremely cluttered. Because then you end up with 3 * n groups, where n = >> number of "Top Level Parents" in your example. So even if n is a small >> number, you end up with a *lot* of groups. With my advanced filter, I only >> have 3 groups, but there is no clutter from errands lists / groceries lists >> / etc.) >> >> My problem was that my advanced filter is NOT successful in filtering out >> inactive tasks. And I can't understand why--my filter rules seem to be >> properly set up to filter out inactive tasks. >> >> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:53:05 PM UTC-7, BOC wrote: >>> >>> Would simple grouping give you what you need? Have the groups collapsed >>> by default then when you want to go to another level, expand the group. >>> >> -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. > To view this discussion on the web visit > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/774734e8-7931-4bed-98e8-d1da4e8631f6%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/774734e8-7931-4bed-98e8-d1da4e8631f6%40googlegroups.com > . > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/48538f8b-09f7-4d21-abfd-b3596bfe3fc9%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
