Thanks, Dwight. Even without making the exact calculation, this does not seem to follow the calculation as set out in the manual. Let's go through this step by step:
1. StartDateScore = (StartDateWeightFactor * Elpased) /500 (p. 49 of the manual). As time progresses, Elapsed increases. StartDateWeightFactor remains the same. Consequently, StartDateScore should increase as time progresses. 2. As there is only a starting date and no due date, DateScoreContribution = StartDateScore (p. 49 of the manual), so DateScoreContribution should increase as time progresses. 3. Score=(ImportanceScore * UrgencyScore) + DateScoreContribution (p. 50 of the manual). As all other parameters remain the same, only DateScoreContribution changes with progressing time, so Score should increase as time progresses. 4. However, as time progresses one day past StartDate, suddenly Score *decreases *by a considerable jump, and afterwards increases again. In any case this would already be highly suspect as it means that there is a discrete change instead of a smooth transition. So as far as I can see, just based on basic math *and* simple logic, this seems to be a bug. However, I would like to see whether I make a conceptual mistake before contacting Andrey with a bug report. So please let me know if I am really overlooking something. Thanks! - Michael On Monday, 10 October 2016 14:48:13 UTC+2, Dwight Arthur wrote: > > Michael, the Users Guide has a long section about Computed Score which > gives a thorough discussion, with examples, showing exactly how all of > this is calculated. After reviewing this section you should be able to > calculate exactly how this 1.032609654 result was calculated and why. If > you precisely follow the algorithm as documented and get a different > result that may be evidence of a bug. > > Disclaimer: this section is good at explaining why you got the result > you got; it is less effective at explaining how to get the resuly you > want. > > Disclosure: I do not personally use computed score because I was unable > to get it to do what I want, so I just ignore urgency and assign a 1-200 > importance value; most of my to-do lists have importance as the last > (and sometimes only) sort. > > -Dwight > > On 10/10/2016 8:19 AM, Michael wrote: > > Using MLO Windows 4.4.1 on Windows 10. Urgency calculation is erratic > > for items with a starting date today. E.g. I have a task with importance > > 100, Urgency 50, starting date yesterday 06:02; calculated > > urgency 0.998498128. If I postpone the starting date one day to today > > 06.02 (all other parameters the same), urgency increases to 1.032609654 > > whereas of course it should be /less/ than with an earlier starting > > date. To me this seems to be a bug as it artificially increases urgency > > for items starting today (and it would strangely lead to a > > /decreased/ urgency as a day goes by), but perhaps I misunderstand > > something? Any input would be welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > -- 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/82b088fa-dcf6-49fd-805e-c2358e4b699d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
