Indirect Access Filing Systems
JC
thinking about my filing system. Even without using their software, I
like the idea of having an index that gets updated with your file
information. The problem of course is that since this is indirect
access you can't just locate your file without using the index, but at
the same time you are able to put in more information about your file
in your index so that it is easier to find it when you actually do.
Here's a good link on filing systems:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/slrm/recordspubs/fs.html
Does anybody use an indirect access filing system as opposed to the
direct access alpha-system that David Allen suggests? Anyone have any
experiences to tell regarding this?
I decided that if I do do this then instead of using a standard linear
numeric index (1..2..3, etc.) I think I would like to use date stamps
for the index. So, for instance, I could file my birth certificate
under the actual date of my birth, as with other items. I think I'd
still maintain a direct access alpha sorted file system for files I am
frequently accessing.
Does anybody know if the cheaper Brother labellers support date/time
stamping?
John
any folder in dos..
dir >> index.txt
There are lots of ways to play with the switches to get the data
formatted just right.
The "tree" command is fun, too.
tree >> index.txt
Try it.
David Douthitt
> I followed a link to the Paper Tiger software and it started me
> thinking about my filing system. Even without using their software, I
> like the idea of having an index that gets updated with your file
> information. The problem of course is that since this is indirect
> access you can't just locate your file without using the index, but at
> the same time you are able to put in more information about your file
> in your index so that it is easier to find it when you actually do.
retrieval - and adds nothing that I can see.
I use a filing cabinet in straight alpha order (always have, even before
GTD) and have recently added another file drawer sorted in access order.
Each time I get a file out, I put it back in the front of this
particular drawer.
Then when I want to find a file, I go to the file drawer first (sorted
in accessed order), then the alpha sorted cabinet.
Consider your example of the birth certificate. When you think of
"birth certificate" what comes to mind first? Not the date, but the
words... Other items are more telling - what about that professional
certificate you received?
If you are leaning towards dates, you might wish to consider the system
proposed by a Japanese author. The link should be in the archives. The
system was basically a dated system based on last access or last used -
and the contents were all mixed in by date used.
Ron Stockfleth
ago, and have been using the numeric index filing system successfully over
that time period.
I recognized that I could have built my own with database or spreadsheet
software, but Paper Tiger had a pretty interface and it was designed
specifically for the need I had, so I jumped in and purchased it.
I work out of my home so my files and computer are located together. The
Paper Tiger software advertises, "Retrieve anything in 5 seconds", and that
has been the case for me. When I need to retrieve something, I simply think
of a keyword, type it into the software, and out pops something like
"Reference 117", and I go right to the document in question. For me, it
works pretty slick. My wife hates it because she is used to an alpha system
and wants to go directly to the folder without using the index, so she keeps
her own filing system. But then, I have noticed she is always trying to
remember where she filed something!
I use the system to file and locate books, software, music CD's, AC
adapters, etc.
One thing I really like about the numeric index system is that I can create
the folders well in advance of when I need them (i.e. Reference files 1
through 300). In this way, when I have something new to file, if it doesn't
belong in an existing folder, I simply drop it into next open folder, and
add it to my index. Now I never have documents lying around waiting to be
filed. For software, I have jewel cases labeled 1 through 200, and just pop
the latest software purchase into the next open jewel case.
I guess a date-based index system would work, but I don't see any advantage
over a simple numeric system. In my system, I have Action folders and
Reference folders. The Action folders are for current projects and are
located within arm's reach. When a project is completed, I move the contents
from an Action folder to a Reference folder. This might look like contents
from Action 15 are moved to Reference 286. This obviously opens up the
Action 15 folder, so I can reuse it. I typically do not have over 30 Action
folders at any given time. I am not sure how your date-index system would
work under this scenario.
I ended up with Taxes - 2004, Taxes - 2003, Taxes - 2002, in Reference
folders 4, 23, and 88 because that is the order I came across those
documents in my filing process. I think this seemingly lack of
organizational structure may make some people uncomfortable, but I have no
problem with it. If I want to retrieve my 2003 tax return, I simply type in
tax and 2003 and Reference 23 pops up on my screen. If I want all of those
tax returns, I type in tax, and References 4, 23, and 88 all come up on my
display.
As I have said previously, I have been using this system for over 6 months
now, and for the first time in my life I have no trouble in retrieving stuff
from my filing system. I hope you have the same luck with your system.
Best regards,
Ron Stockfleth
Ron Stockfleth
create your folders and labels well in advance of when you need them. When
something new needs to be filed, simply drop it in the next open folder, and
add it to your index.
In a non-indexed system, you need to make a decision on what you are going
to label something before filing it. I know that hasn't ever been a problem
for you, but I bet there are few others out there who have stacks of paper
accumulating because they haven't decided what to name and file their
documents under.
Ron Stockfleth
-----Original Message-----
From: 43Fo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:43Fo...@googlegroups.com] On
David Douthitt
> I work out of my home so my files and computer are located together. The
> Paper Tiger software advertises, "Retrieve anything in 5 seconds", and that
> has been the case for me. When I need to retrieve something, I simply think
> of a keyword, type it into the software, and out pops something like
> "Reference 117", and I go right to the document in question. For me, it
> works pretty slick. My wife hates it because she is used to an alpha system
> and wants to go directly to the folder without using the index, so she keeps
> her own filing system. But then, I have noticed she is always trying to
> remember where she filed something!
tagging and the search function.
Reading the other poster's link from Texas was illuminating. One of the
given advantages to a numeric filing system is that someone can't filch
one of the files easily because they don't have the index and can't just
go and get it.
What happens if your index fails, or the software doesn't run on the new
version of your operating system, or there is a nasty bug in the
software? You are completely and utterly dependent on your computer and
your software and your index. I would not want to put my trust into a
computer or into software...
Secondly, is it *really* 5 seconds? Start the clock when you sit down
at a cold computer and see how long it takes you to get to your index.
Most computers take at least 3 minutes (90 seconds) just to start. Then
you have to start your software - open your index - search your index -
and you haven't even got to the files yet.
A well-ordered alpha system will take less than 5 seconds to get any
file - or perhaps up to 15 seconds tops. The time an alpha system
breaks down is if there are too many files.... as noted in the Texas link.
JoshD
> Secondly, is it *really* 5 seconds? Start the clock when you sit down
> at a cold computer and see how long it takes you to get to your index.
> Most computers take at least 3 minutes (90 seconds) just to start. Then
> you have to start your software - open your index - search your index -
> and you haven't even got to the files yet.
While I think the rest of your post makes good points, this seems a bit
silly. How many of us shut our computers down when we walk away from
them during the day? I don't even shut mine down at the end of the day;
it goes to sleep, and wakes up and is ready for access in a second.
Then again, that's my mac, and it doesn't run Paper Tiger. :)
Those of us who hibernate or shut our computers down at the end of the
day: how many wait until you know you need to access something on the
computer before you start it up? I walk into my cubicle, hit power,
then take off my coat and run my personal office boot cycle (pull my
stuff out of my bag, grab coffee, check voice mail... you know what I
mean). By the time I'm done booting, so is the machine.
I won't repeat what I and others have said about alpha filing versus
time-based filing; I think they're complementary, so long as the latter
gets reviewed and purged, preferably weekly. (In fact, the Noguchi File
requires a long-term, alpha-based file to move "holy" files to.)
If you can manage up-front alpha filing for everything, go you. Mine
gets cluttered too quickly, but odds are, you're more organized than I
am. :)
Cheers,
Josh
Ron Stockfleth
> From: 43Fo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:43Fo...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of David Douthitt
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:36 AM
> To: 43Fo...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [43F Group] Re: Indirect Access Filing Systems
>
>
> tagging and the search function.
A numeric index is helpful in that you can create your filing structure in
advance of when you need it. When a new item comes into your system which
needs filing, simply drop it into the first open folder and add it to your
index. Without the index, the scenario goes, "what should I call this, where
should I file it, where is that file folder, and print out that label, oh
forget it, I'll just put it over in stack number 4 on my desk".
> What happens if your index fails, or the software doesn't run on the new
> version of your operating system, or there is a nasty bug in the
> software? You are completely and utterly dependent on your computer and
> your software and your index. I would not want to put my trust into a
> computer or into software...
I print my updated index periodically and place a hard copy at the front of
the filing location. I do routine backups of my programs and data on the
computer. I "trust" not only my filing system to the computer, but my
financials, my communications, my work papers and documents, my photos, and
my music to a computer. What do you use your computer for?
> Secondly, is it *really* 5 seconds? Start the clock when you sit down
> at a cold computer and see how long it takes you to get to your index.
> Most computers take at least 3 minutes (90 seconds) just to start. Then
> you have to start your software - open your index - search your index -
> and you haven't even got to the files yet.
Yes, it really is 5 seconds. I do not turn on and turn off my computer
throughout the day as my need for filing occurs. It is turned once in the
morning. The software is started once a day. I use a virtual desktop manager
so all of my frequently-used applications (MyLifeOrganized, Outlook,
Firefox, Quicken, Access, Paper Tiger, eWallet, etc.)are open all of the
time, and with one click occupy the main display screen. 5 seconds is as 5
seconds does.
> A well-ordered alpha system will take less than 5 seconds to get any
> file - or perhaps up to 15 seconds tops. The time an alpha system
> breaks down is if there are too many files.... as noted in the Texas link.
The index system is ideal for those few of us who find it difficult to
create and maintain a well-ordered alpha system. That's the essential
advantage of an index system, simple to create, and low-maintenance.
TB
comes to issuing unique numbers for papers. Auto-advancing serial
number and time-date stamps are pretty expensive. Also, most numerical
filing set-ups involve an investment in color-coded number labels to
prevent and detect misfiles.
Unless you need the extra security and better spatial distribution of
files that numerical filing affords, it's better to stick with alpha
filing -- it's cheap, forgiving, and easy to implement.
TB
JC
numerical instead of chronological. I was leaning toward the
chronological for weird idiosyncratic reasons anyway.
One thing I think the index would help me with is the fear that I will
file something and then forget about it. I feel like having the index
to review will help me remember what the hell is in my files.
I also like the idea that I can easily move stuff around if I don't
like where it is and just update the index. I like Ron's idea of
having a separate set of action files, which made me think that someone
could also reserve the first 10 folders or so for active files, know
what I mean?
Either way, I'm one of those people that has stuff piled up because of
the agony of naming files (and fear of forgetting them), so I think
this will be great for me. I had already been tinkering with the idea
of generating an index anyway just so I'd be able to remember what all
was in my files.
You people are great.
JC
TheOldGuy
and what works for one doesn't always work for another. That said, I
must be missing something when it comes to an index/numerical filing
system. It seems to me it just adds a step into an alpha system. In
the tax example for instance, I just go to my alpha files under taxes
and find all years right there together, not scattered throughout
multiple drawers. No computer, no database involved. If I understand
the index system correctly, I need to come up with a keyword for
everything I file. Then, I need to remember that keyword to enter into
the index to find the numerical folder for the file. If I can remember
the keyword, why not file the information under that word and "skip the
middleman"? I can see that entering multiple keywords could be an
advantage, as long as I remember at least one of them. If I can't
remember a keyword, going to my files won't even give me a clue since
they are only numbered and similar items aren't necessarily in close
proximity in the file drawers.
I'll admit, I used an index system for filing photo negatives. That's
because the film was filed as a roll and frames from a single roll
might have different subjects. It just wasn't convenient to cut 35 mm
film into single frames and file that way. (Ah, digital imaging!)
To each his own I guess.
Ron Stockfleth
> That said, I must be missing something when it
> comes to an index/numerical filing system. It seems to me it
> just adds a step into an alpha system.
out as if this 2-second step is grossly inefficient. What do you get in
return for this one infinitesimal step? You get an instant structure to your
entire filing system. In the alpha system, the filer is constantly creating
structure as he/she adds to his/her filing system. In my experience, not
knowing instantly where to file something (perhaps a new category), results
in delayed filing which results in stacks of paper around the office. Being
able to file something immediately, without having to think about where I
should file it, is a great benefit to me and very much worth the 2 seconds
it takes to give it a number.
> In the tax example
> for instance, I just go to my alpha files under taxes and
> find all years right there together, not scattered throughout
> multiple drawers.
the next open folder. It is not a requirement to do so. I could have easily
filed or re-filed them together, but it never occurred to me why that would
be so important. Type in "tax" for your search, the computer pops out 4 file
numbers, you grab the files, and you re-file them in their numeric sequence
when you are done with them. Do you really visualize this as a huge problem
and so grossly inefficient to discard the index system out-of-hand? An alpha
filer creates a new folder "Taxes - 2005". Much to his dismay that file
drawer is completely full. But Taxes - 2005 must be filed with all of the
taxes in prior years, so he starts moving folders to other drawers to make
room for his new folder. Or wait, perhaps taxes were filed under Finances or
some other file name.
> No computer, no database involved.
Alpha filers do not "trust" their filing to a computer. As I have stated in
a previous post, the index system is greatly enhanced by using a computer. I
have instant access to my index through my computer whenever I need to
retrieve a document. It is simply not an issue. I am astounded that people
will handle their finances, taxes, essential communications, work projects,
shopping, etc. via a computer, but they won't trust a computer with their
filing system.
> If I understand the index system correctly, I need to come up with
> a keyword for everything I file. Then, I need to remember
> that keyword to enter into the index to find the numerical
> folder for the file. If I can remember the keyword, why not
> file the information under that word and "skip the
> middleman"? I can see that entering multiple keywords could
> be an advantage, as long as I remember at least one of them.
label (i.e. keyword) for everything I file. And there's that grossly
inefficient middleman again. By definition keywords are what you think of
when you think of a particular document. If you can't remember a keyword,
you are not going to find it under an alpha or index system. If you really
cannot remember a keyword, you can peruse your index for keywords just like
you would peruse your files.
> To each his own I guess.
>
Ron
JC
So, what I've decided is to keep everything in alpha sorted direct
access, but I'm just going to start keeping an index as well, so I'll
have the best of both worlds. I still won't worry about forgetting
what is in my files or that I won't be able to find something after I
file it, but I will also be able to access the files directly if I can
remember where it is without the index. Of course, this will add an
additional amount of work, but I have decided that it will be worth it
for the reasons I stated above.
What do you all think?
James Hundley
engr
Category 1 - say AD for analog design (I'm and engineer)
Category 2 - D for Digital design
now I have an article on analog design - I put it in a folder labeled
AD101, I mark the top sheet AD101 and I have and Index in front of the
AD where I enter AD101 and a few words to describe the title or
subject.
The same with digital design D101, D102.... The file looks like this.
AD101
AD102
AD103
.
.
D101
D102
D103
D104
.
.
Benefits
1) you have major categories (formally a pile of stuff)
2) each new article goes at the end of the file folder for that
category - no need to alphabetize
3) if I remove an article to read or copy and share then I can easily
refill in D106 or AD109. This feature is not always though out very
well in filing systems.
4) at a glance I can scan the index and easily retrieve a specific
Digital design article
I did not invent this just used it from one of the Clutter books. It
works very well.
TheOldGuy
years for photo negatives so I have nothing against the system when
it's helpful. If it works for you great.
As far as "trusting my computer" if you had seen an earlier post of
mine you would know that I am moving to electronic data storage,
scanning and saving the scan, rather than storing paper when for legal
or other reasons paper originals are not required. Even those items
that must be retained in original form are scanned. That way I at
least have a copy should the original be destroyed by fire or other
catastrophy. The scans are copied to CD/DVD and can be stored offsite
for additional security/safety. All this adds more than the famous
"two seconds" but saves much storage space and provides redundancy.
And yes, my computer folders are alpha not numeric. This system does
add a little of the index system in that files can be searched
electronically.
JC's combined system of alpha storage with a computer index offers
another possibility different from your system or mine. The value of
this and other forums is getting ideas and finding the one or
combination that works for the user. Your system apparently works for
you. That's great. My system works for me.