It's been about two weeks since I've read the book, but I'm going to
try and figure out the best system for my one-and-only (hanging) file
drawer in my desk at home.

Right now, literally everything goes in it's own named folder (by
company, store, business, etc.) But thinking about it, I've been having
to create a new folder if I buy something from a place I haven't been
to before. (I did finally create Misc A-F, G-L, M-Q, R-V, W-Z folders,
but still.)

I think I've got a lot of folders in my drawer, and I'm sure if I cut
it down, I could at least implement the tickler system with 43 folders.

Would it be better to purge my files to see what receipts and documents
are probably outdated, then to switch to the A-Z system? How did you
figure out the best system for yourself? I'm short on cash, so I'd like
to try to work with what I've got without switching to a non-Pendaflex
(hanging file) system.

Thanks!

I'm still implementing GTD, and I'm using a mix of hanging and non-hanging
folders. I'm using the plain manilla folders for files that have to be
somewhat mobile. I hate carrying hanging folders in my backpack. Going
forward, I'm only buying manilla folders. (and tape for the P-Touch :)

I had a similar problem with the old vs. new filing systems, and I decided
to just let the old stuff "age out". Anything new is going into the new
filing system.

Can I take a moment to rant about the uselessness of thermal paper receipts?
I've since started making photocopies of significant receipts, so it's not a
huge problem anymore. I'd just like to state for the record that I hate
thermal paper. It's evil.

On 7/26/05, Bryan Villarin <btvilla...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since the hanging folders cost quite a bit, I'd like it if I can get
rid of some extraneous files to free up space for the A-Z system. I
guess I need at least 69 folders (A-Z plus the tickler file system),
plus extra for projects. What's your system consist of?

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give that go.

[Off-Topic] Funny rant, man. You keep the originals for awhile, or just
convert them into PDF and chuck 'em? Are you talking about the larger
purchases, or small purchases (e.g. using a debit card at a semi-fast
food restaurant, Starbucks, gas station)?

I'm half-way through implementing GTD and I confess I don't get the A-Z thing.

DA says it makes for less places to misfile things.  By my thinking it
makes that worse, not better.

Example:  I'm trying to get out of debt by filling in a form to claim
a tax rebate.  Do I file the form under T-Tax?  I-Inland revenue?
R-rebate?  D-Debt?

Hell, I've had days when it would have gone under 'F' for 'Form'...

Andy.
--
Give me ambiguity, or give me something else.

I opt for stable categories that don't change according to your state of
mind.  Once you are used to the principle, there is little hesitation in
going to the right file.  But, frankly, almost any system will do if you
have only one file cabinet of files that only you use.  Over time the
you-who-looks-up-info will learn how the you-who-files-info works and
correct really bad filing practices, if they really matter to you.

My vote: Inland Revenue.

Dennis C. During
dcdur...@gmail.com
(914) 663-8203

In my filing system it's "business/tax/other".

As I understand it, it's not so much a question of "mis-filing"
somthing, more a question of retrieval. In this case, you'd have, at
most, four things to look under if you wanted to find the item. You
decide whether that's reasonable or not. Obviously, the more consistent
you can be, the fewer things you have to look under and the better your
retrieval system. I would suggest you go with your gut instinct as to
which category to use.

I must confess, a part of me agrees with you as far as not getting the
A-Z thing is concerned. But also, a part of me just bows to the greater
knowledge in a "we are not worthy" manner. The part of me that agrees
with you sits at home, and looks on at my existing filing system (not
A-Z sorted, and not a particularly pretty sight).  The part of me that
bows down sits at work, and looks at my filing system there (contains
less stuff, but it is A-Z sorted in approved DA style). I have to
confess that whenever I look for something at work, I always find it
easily, even when my initial reaction is "now will I find that under
this, or that, or the other ...". Looking for something at home? Well, I
usually find it, but it's altogether more stressful.

--
Neal Dench / http://porkpop.blogspot.com

I have a copy machine (my printer/scanner/copier combo). When I truly
think I'll get confused, I put it in both folders :o)

        --Michael

On 7/27/05, Neal Dench <nde...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Michael Langford  --- 404-386-0495
It is very much better sometimes to have a panic feeling
beforehand, and then to be quite calm when things happen,
than to be extremely calm beforehand and to get into a panic
when things happen --Winston Churchill

Over the last year, I have been converting both of my (very large) home
and work filing systems to the Paper Tiger
(http://www.thepapertiger.com/) filing system. This system really
facilitates easy retrieval by employing search and indexing through the
computer.

It may sound insane, but everything is simply filed by a number,
without topical categorization. This makes the filing process itself
very quick and painless and therefore filing tends to not pile up.
Simply grab a paper, search on a keyword, if no files come up, create a
new listing in the index and drop the paper in a numbered file. While
the software is fairly expensive, most of the functionality could be
replicated by using an Excel template. Retrieval is then just a search
on the index. A printout can also be made of the index and added to a
special folder at the front of the filing drawer as a backup or to look
a file up when your computer is unavailable.

Finding any one piece of paper is incredibly quick with this system and
I am finding numerous additional benefits. For one, it's portable.
Since I have my filing index (the Paper Tiger software) installed on my
laptop I don't have to be in my office to update my  filing system. I
just grab the stack of papers requiring filing and when I have a couple
minutes during the day, I annotate each of them with their
corresponding number. When I return home, I simply drop each in their
corresponding numbered file. Secondly, since contextual labels are only
stored electronically in the index, I can instantly reorganize my
system by changing the labels in the index without having to physically
reorder or relabel any folders. Additionally, the system has an
inherent low-level security benefit if you don't use the paper index.
When you open my filing drawer, all you see are files labeled "1", "2",
"3", "4", etc. If someone was trying to find confidential or sensitive
information, it would be very difficult for them, without access to the
index.

This system may be overkill for someone with a single drawer of papers
to file, but for anyone with a lot of papers they have to keep track
of, it's a dream.

On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:14 AM, Andy Jones wrote:

And this is the very crux of the A-Z filing system.

Business/tax/other would indicate that you have many business/tax  
folders. Which is really creating a non-alphabetical hierarchy.

Sometimes this is useful. I might put my side freelance work into a  
"Freelance accounts payable" folder that's separate from my general  
"Bills" folder. But, on the other hand, a bill is a bill is a bill.  
If I gotta pay it, it should be in the place I look for things to pay.

That's why a simple A-Z system is nice. A place for everything, and  
only ONE place. Plus you know how to find it.

But I'm picking too much on Andy, and possibly unfairly. (Sorry Andy!)

Where things really break down is when you totally break A-Z. I've  
worked for people who keep "topical" filing systems. So red folders  
are for payables, green for receivables, blue for employee records,  
and every chunk of colored folders have their own hierarchies.

It makes it VERY hard to file and to find things. You have to ask  
yourself "Is this employee related? Yup. Is it a bill? Uh huh... So  
where does it go? Where do I find it?"

If instead, you have a file for each employee, just mixed in with the  
alphabetization, it's easy to find. Or, failing that, using an  
"Employee: Bob Jones" folder isn't necessarily bad. Particularly if  
the meta-categories make sense. (e.g. I have both a "Payables:  
Pending" and a "Payables: Paid" folder; the one gets looked at on  
bill paying day, and the other is my history file.)

--Nik

One other filing note: Don't be afraid of overly broad categories!  
You might think that an "Automotive" file with everything for all  
your cars will fill up too fast. But, if you don't HAVE that much  
paperwork about your cars, go ahead and throw it in one file. If it's  
small enough that you can sort through it quickly, that's good enough.

If you later find that you need to break it down into sub-categories  
or some sort, go ahead and do it then. Making a new folder is cheap  
and easy.

On Jul 26, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Harvey Simmons wrote:

Sorry for the filing-related post flood. I'm a filing nerd, I admit it!

Harvey, you might want to try just dropping manilla folders inside  
your hanging folders. Label the manilla instead of the hanging  
folder. Then you can just pick up the manilla folder and portage it  
around as needed, and drop it back into its hanging file shell when  
you're done.

My desk ONLY accepts hanging folders, so this is the method I use. I  
find it occasionally useful to have the folder within another folder,  
because if I leave one at the wrong place, I can always drop  
something into the hanging folder and merge it with the manilla  
folder later. (Provided I can suss out which folder is missing -- not  
always easy since the hanging folders aren't labeled.)

--Nik

On 7/27/05, Andy Jones <shadowfireb...@gmail.com> wrote:

There seems to be a confusion about the filing system that I think
must be due to the strange wording that The David used in the chapter
on the filing system. You can see it in this thread.

The first time I read his paragraph on the filing system, I thought it
meant that he recommended a folder for each letter of the alphabet, as
Andy seems to. However, I had to read it several times because filing
things under a folder marked only with a letter frankly doesn't make a
bit of sense to me. Here is exactly what the book says:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I have one A-Z alphabetical filing system, not multiple systems.
People have a tendency to want to use their files as a personal
organization system, and therefore they attempt to organize them by
projects or areas of focus. This magnifies geometrically the number of
places something *isn't* when you forget where you filed it. One
simple alpha system files everything by topic, project, person, or
company, so it can be in only three or four places if you forget
exactly where you put it. You can usually put at least one subset of
topics on each label, like "Gardening---pots" and "Gardening--ideas."
These would be filed under G.

Currently I have four file drawers for my general-reference files, and
each is clearly marked on the outside---"A--E," "F--L," and so on---so
I don't have to think about where something goes once it's labeled.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you read that again, you can easily see where the confusion is. The
phrases, "I have one A-Z alphabetical filing system," "People [...]
attempt to organize them by projects or areas of focus. This magnifies
geometrically the number of places something *isn't* when you forget
where you filed it," and, "Currently I have four file drawers for my
general-reference files, and each is clearly marked on the
outside---"A--E," "F--L," and so on," seem to contradict the others,
"One simple alpha system files everything by topic, project, person,
or company, so it can be in only three or four places if you forget
exactly where you put it.," "You can usually put at least one subset
of topics on each label, like 'Gardening---pots' and
'Gardening--ideas,'" "I don't have to think about where something goes
once it's labeled."

What I eventually took from this back-and-forth paragraph is that the
system he describes is to have folders representing your own logical
groupings of files, such as "Bank statements" or "Favorite catalogs,"
and file *those* alphabetically, the former in the "B" section and the
latter with "F". I don't see any contradictions when I read it again
with this in mind.

What do my folders look like? _A_wards, _B_ank Statements 200_4_,
_B_ank Statements 200_5_, _B_ank_i_ng Documents, _C_ar, Old _E_ssays,
_F_amily, _G_raduation, _I_nspiration, _L_etters of Recommendation,
_L_oan Offers, _M_edical, etc. It's obvious if I filed something under
_T_ax, _I_nland Revenue, _R_ebate, or _D_ebt, because only one of
those folders will exist (hopefully). I've been running things like
this for months and I have always been able to find things quickly and
easily.

Of course, I could be wrong. I had to read into it a lot to figure out
exactly what he was saying, but I believe I got it right. It doesn't
really matter since the filing system I'm using works, but I'm always
interested in hearing what others have to say.

Had enough dissection yet? :)

Sincerely,

Tom Reinhart
t...@alltom.com
http://AllTom.com/

I used this system for a while several years back.  I liked it then,
but don't like it so much now.

Create a bunch of folders numbered 1 to 100.  When you've got a new
subject to file, say, "Vital Records", put it in the next empty
folder, then use the program to state "Folder 46 - Vital Records".  If
you then sort by subject, then you've got "Vital Records - Folder 46".
This folder may have several subjects in it, but you'd just create new
index lines to the same folder -- easy crossreferencing.  Also, since
the folders are pre-numbered, filing is quick, and just involves
entering the data into your index program. The folder are not in any
subject order, just the numerical index.

My database background said this was a good idea.  Names change, so
it's nicer to index by a number.  Filing is fast, and crossreferences
are easy.  This can be easily done with a spreadsheet, which I
eventually used.  Why PaperTiger charges $100+ for this program I
can't fathom.  It wasn't even well written.

But after a while, retrieving the data became the sore spot.  The
computer had to be on to access the index to figure out where the
birth certificate was.  You can print out the index, but now I've got
to reference the index paper to figure out which file folder.  And if
I loose that commonly referenced paper, I'm stuck -- that program is
five years old, and after multiple computer migrations, I don't have the
original data anymore.

I've since just moved to manilla folders, which are quick to put a
label on, and I (or anybody else) can open the file cabinet and find a
folder quickly and a paper within a few minutes.  It's stored under
"Records:Vital" near "Records:Medical" and it's not that hard to flip
through the system.  Finding a file is not that hard as long as you
have a least a half-baked scheme, and I think some of these "modern"
schemes have a hard time working long term.

I still have the one cabnet sorted by index number, and I've been
going back to rename all of the files.  I wouldn't want to lose that
index page.

--
  Lance Orner
  la...@orner.net

Numerical filing has definitely been a revelation to me. It is so much
easier, and with a computer log I can find things that are
multicategory. I've been using something from www.pilecabinets.com

Once you get passed the rah-rah stuff on the front page, he sells a
manual and gives you as an extra a filemaker pro runtime log that
works very well. Mac and Win compatible. Using the Mac version at home
and the Windoze at work and I'm very pleased with results in just a
few short weeks. I had also tried the papertiger software a few years
ago and found it not to my liking. This is simpler and simple is good.

On 7/27/05, Lance Orner <la...@orner.net> wrote:

Nik,

I think I'm going to try this out. Now's the perfect time, too.

Thanks!

On 7/27/05, Nik <ger...@inik.net> wrote:

I wanted to see what you were referring to, but it looks like
http://www.pilecabinets.com has been hacked, and the index.html file
has been replaced.  Did this just happen?

--
  Lance Orner
  la...@orner.net

Made a mistake on the URL for Pilecabinet!
Correct is www.pilecabinet.com

On 7/27/05, Bob Freud <bob.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, that just gave me a neat integration idea.  For the Mac-Heads;
imagine if you had a numerical file index like this that would also be
indexed by Spotlight.  So you do a search for "taxes" in Spotlight,
not only do you get proper references to files on your hard drive, but
you could also get pointers to files that were in your physical
folders.

PileCabinet may already do this (or may already be able to do this
with an appropriate plugin) if it's FileMaker, but I don't know.  
Maybe I should dust off RealBasic :)

On 7/27/05, Bob Freud <bob.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
simon.c...@gmail.com

Well, in a way it is alphabetical.  All the 'business/tax' folders
come before the 'business/work' ones, for example.

But I think you are missing the point of a heirarchical filing system.
 I don't have many business/tax folders (if I remember right, five).
If I did, I would add another level to the heirarchy so that each
bottom level would only have a few folders in it.

No offense taken!  That's what you get when you play Devil's Advocate...

No offense taken, and always good to quote from the source, but I did
understand that there were more than 26 folders.  That's sort of the
problem: there are many, many more than 26 folders, and storing things
in a single level of heirarchy makes it rather difficult to tell which
one you are looking for.

Maybe this is simply because I don't have a mind that works in
straight lines; perhaps A-Z is good for some people but not for me.

At the moment I would still rather create a stable, objective set of
categories to file under.  That way I have a much smaller set of
folders to search through.

On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:27 AM, Andy Jones wrote:

Don't restrict yourself to a single level of hierarchy if that's a  
problem. I TRY to have one level of hierarchy, but there's many  
situation where that isn't appropriate. Just keep it alphabetical  
(Computer comes after Business) and consistently labeled (always use  
Category: Subcategory, rather than sometimes reversing the system),  
and you shouldn't have problems.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

Consistent, stable files will create disorganization. This is why:

Imagine you get a completely new project, like, I dunno, hiring a  
landscaper to do your yard. You know that he'll only be about a month  
before he's finished, so you don't create a "Landscaping" folder.  
Instead, you cram everything into your existing system: The bills  
from the guy go into your "Bills" folder, the contract and plans into  
your "House: Misc." folder, and the warranty information into your  
"Warranties" folder.

But then, once he's done, you decide to do some gardening on your  
own. So you draw up some plans, download some how-tos on drip  
irrigation, and so forth.

Pretty soon, you have a ton of reference material spread out over  
your whole filing system.

A year later, when your sprinkler breaks... where was that file  
telling me how to fix it?

Instead, make new files. That's WHY The David recommends plain  
manilla folders; they're very easy to create and re-use. At work, as  
soon as I get a new project, I make an email folder and a file folder  
for that project. More often than not, the paper folder has only one  
or two documents in it. Sometimes, it balloons to three or four  
folders with sub categories. But, no matter what, if something's  
sitting on  my desk that references that project, I have a place to  
put it.

--Nik

I think the form should be filed on the date you intend to fill it
out...in the 43 folder system.  If this is a form you want to keep on
file for the future, then you file it in the a-z folder.  It's your
system...file it under the one that comes to your mind first.

I agree completely.

I'm saying that the +categories+ must be stable and objective.  At
least at the top level of the heirarchy, more if you can manage it.

But the +folders+ must not be stable.   You should be able to add or
subtract them at will.

I've used the following system for over 15 years (initially using Info
Select), and it works (provided you don't lose the reference file):

A simple 2-column excel file:

Column A is incrementing numbers (100, 101, 102 ...).

Column B briefly describes what the contents of #102 is (ie: VISA
Statement, March 2005).

Takes me seconds to file something; simply write the number of the next
available row on the top of the document. Takes me seconds to find it;
search for "VISA" in Excel. My filing cabinet is simply a sequential
series of file folders: "Folder 101-115", "Folder 116-134", "Folder
135-156".

Can't see any reason why I'd want to go back to the "Hydro Bills",
"House Insurance", "Bank Statements" filing system again ...

My two cents,
Doug