Is it possible to have a View that is sorted only _partly_ a manual sort?
30 views
Skip to first unread message
John . Smith
Jan 25, 2018, 8:28:28 AM1/25/18
to MyLifeOrganized
Hello
Is it possible to have a View that is only partly a manual sort?
e.g. Can I have a view that is sorted by Importance, but between tasks of identical Importance, I can manually sort them?
To get clear, what I am trying to achieve is that I when I do a pass over my tasks, I want to flag up the really high priority task, and also flag up which are definitely lower priority, but which nonetheless I intend to do during this time period (i.e. normally today). And I want it to stay visually obvious as I refer to and execute my tasks as to which tasks are of what 'absolute' priority... And yet at the same time, within the rough ranges of priority I then wish to change which tasks are of which priority relative to each other.
Maybe there is a better field to use other than Importance, but it would be nice to be able to use keyboard shortcuts as much as possible.
To get clear, what I am trying to achieve is that I when I do a pass over my tasks, I want to flag up the really high priority task, and also flag up which are definitely lower priority, but which nonetheless I intend to do during this time period (i.e. normally today). And I want it to stay visually obvious as I refer to and execute my tasks as to which tasks are of what 'absolute' priority... And yet at the same time, within the rough ranges of priority I then wish to change which tasks are of which priority relative to each other.
Maybe there is a better field to use other than Importance, but it would be nice to be able to use keyboard shortcuts as much as possible.
Thanks
J
Alyona (MLO Support)
Jan 25, 2018, 12:11:51 PM1/25/18
to MyLifeOrganized
You may assign flags of different colors to differentiate tasks that are equally important. After that set up sorting: first by importance, then by flags.
For example, you have task 1 (importance=150, no flag), task 2 (importance=120, flag=blue) and task 3 (importance=120, flag=red). The items in To-Do list will have the following order: Task 1, task 3, task 2.
For example, you have task 1 (importance=150, no flag), task 2 (importance=120, flag=blue) and task 3 (importance=120, flag=red). The items in To-Do list will have the following order: Task 1, task 3, task 2.
John . Smith
Jan 26, 2018, 7:27:27 AM1/26/18
to MyLifeOrganized
What I am trying to achieve is slightly subtle.
The problem that I have found is that any form of priority that uses "absolute" values eventually breaks down when one uses it. This is because you end up getting lots of tasks that are of about the same level of priority to you and for this reason, you get a sort of "clustering effect" emerging over time with lots of task seeming to have the same priority.
So for example, I might well end up with say 10 tasks ALL of which have Importance=120, Flag=red, and one quickly runs out of whatever your finest divisions are. i.e. You run out of 'granularity'...
So for example, I might well end up with say 10 tasks ALL of which have Importance=120, Flag=red, and one quickly runs out of whatever your finest divisions are. i.e. You run out of 'granularity'...
But what I was trying to do is to prioritise my tasks in two passes.
Pass #1. In this pass I go over my tasks in a hierarchy view. Here I allocate an approximate absolute priority to me. [e.g. MLO's Importance field with 7 possible values works well for this ("Max, A Lot, More, Normal, Less, Little, Min" )] And I allocate any Stars (which to me means "Attempt to do in the next 2 days")
Pass #1. In this pass I go over my tasks in a hierarchy view. Here I allocate an approximate absolute priority to me. [e.g. MLO's Importance field with 7 possible values works well for this ("Max, A Lot, More, Normal, Less, Little, Min" )] And I allocate any Stars (which to me means "Attempt to do in the next 2 days")
Pass #2. In my second pass, I am looking at a flat (non-hierarchical) view. I am just looking at those items which I have starred. In this pass I am trying to decide in which order to actually execute my starred items.
So for Pass #1 my allocating of an absolute priority to me (e.g. using the Importance field's popup) works well. ==> and automatic sort, in this case based on the Importance will get tasks into roughly the right order and works well.
However, for my Pass #2, I need to create a sequence of which tasks I am going to do in what order. i.e. which tasks I am going to execute first. This requires comparing the priority of tasks side-by-side/next to each other. [Plus in some cases any possible clustering of similar tasks together, as this may be more efficient, due to set-up times, mood, location etc ] And this requires a manual sort.
To get clear, in the end users do have decide in which order they will execute their tasks. I mean even if you have your 10 tasks with exactly the same level of priority in the absolute sense (i.e. of how important/urgent each of them is to you), what you then have to decide is: In what sequence are you actually going to execute those tasks?
And that last bit will require a manual sort of all those tasks that have roughly a similar priority to you.
So this is what I tried.
Having completed my careful manual sort, I tried to switch on the automatic sort by Importance on a temporary basis, hoping that it would only move tasks past each other if they had differing Importance values and that task of the same Importance values would stay put.
I was then hoping to switch back to a manual sort to complete the fine-tuning of which tasks to do in which order.
However what happens is that the automatic sort uses
1. Sort by Importance and then
2. It ignores my careful manual sort and instead sorts by the sequence in the unsorted master outline...
And then the second that you remove the sort and turn on manual sorting again, the sort order goes back to whatever it was before, completely ignoring the fact that I had ever turned on the automatic sort.
TL;DR It seems that the only way to do a relative [task vs. task] sort is to do a manual sort, but that it is impossible to get things roughly into the right order first using an automated sort.
J
Dwight
Jan 26, 2018, 11:48:42 AM1/26/18
to mylifeo...@googlegroups.com
this may not be what you are looking for but it is how I handle the
situation. I do the rough sort using the importance popup for what you
call absolute priority and I call coarse tuning. Then to force an order
onto the tasks I use the full 0-200 scale of importance. If I have a
cluster at importance=120 I will reassign them values between 115 and
125 to make them come out in the right order.
My tasks list is complex and yet I never need more than 200 actually
different priority levels. If you are running out of granularity my bet
is that you are bumping up into the bell curve. For example you might
have no tasks between 25 and 75 but 100 tasks between 120 and 130. That
means that you are doing it wrong, falling into the trap of "all my
tasks are above average". Dont do that, go back and spread them more
evenly so that 100 does not mean "normal", it means "half of my tasks
are below this in priority."
To directly answer your question there is no way to make a hybrid of
automatic and manual sorting. And there is no way to turn on automatic
sorting for a manually sorted list and hope it will retain any memory of
your previous manual sort. fwiw you can take an automatically sorted
list and switch it to manual, reordering what you want to reorder and it
will remember. New tasks and changes to existing tasks will not be
automatically sorted until/unless you re-enable automatic sort, after
which your manual sort is all reset. and, one more thing, the manual
sort is only synched to mobile if you do this in the STARRED view.
-Dwight
On 1/26/2018 7:27 AM, John . Smith wrote:
>
>
> Yes, using multiple fields to do the sorting is a cunning idea... but it
> doesn't really help me.
>
> What I am trying to achieve is slightly subtle.
> The problem that I have found is that any form of priority that uses
> "absolute" values eventually breaks down when one uses it. This is
> because you end up getting lots of tasks that are of about the same
> level of priority to you and for this reason, you get a sort of
> "clustering effect" emerging over time with lots of task seeming to have
> the same priority.
>
> So for example, I might well end up with say 10 tasks ALL of which have
> Importance=120, Flag=red, and one quickly runs out of whatever your
> finest divisions are. i.e. You run out of 'granularity'...
>
> But what I was trying to do is to prioritise my tasks in two passes.
>
> *Pass #1. *In this pass I go over my tasks in a hierarchy view. Here I
> Is it possible to have a View that is only /partly/ a manual sort?
> 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 mylifeorganiz...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:mylifeorganiz...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to mylifeo...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:mylifeo...@googlegroups.com>.
> 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/8540be4e-61a4-47f6-8893-714b8d12ab20%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/8540be4e-61a4-47f6-8893-714b8d12ab20%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
situation. I do the rough sort using the importance popup for what you
call absolute priority and I call coarse tuning. Then to force an order
onto the tasks I use the full 0-200 scale of importance. If I have a
cluster at importance=120 I will reassign them values between 115 and
125 to make them come out in the right order.
My tasks list is complex and yet I never need more than 200 actually
different priority levels. If you are running out of granularity my bet
is that you are bumping up into the bell curve. For example you might
have no tasks between 25 and 75 but 100 tasks between 120 and 130. That
means that you are doing it wrong, falling into the trap of "all my
tasks are above average". Dont do that, go back and spread them more
evenly so that 100 does not mean "normal", it means "half of my tasks
are below this in priority."
To directly answer your question there is no way to make a hybrid of
automatic and manual sorting. And there is no way to turn on automatic
sorting for a manually sorted list and hope it will retain any memory of
your previous manual sort. fwiw you can take an automatically sorted
list and switch it to manual, reordering what you want to reorder and it
will remember. New tasks and changes to existing tasks will not be
automatically sorted until/unless you re-enable automatic sort, after
which your manual sort is all reset. and, one more thing, the manual
sort is only synched to mobile if you do this in the STARRED view.
-Dwight
On 1/26/2018 7:27 AM, John . Smith wrote:
>
>
> Yes, using multiple fields to do the sorting is a cunning idea... but it
> doesn't really help me.
>
> What I am trying to achieve is slightly subtle.
> The problem that I have found is that any form of priority that uses
> "absolute" values eventually breaks down when one uses it. This is
> because you end up getting lots of tasks that are of about the same
> level of priority to you and for this reason, you get a sort of
> "clustering effect" emerging over time with lots of task seeming to have
> the same priority.
>
> So for example, I might well end up with say 10 tasks ALL of which have
> Importance=120, Flag=red, and one quickly runs out of whatever your
> finest divisions are. i.e. You run out of 'granularity'...
>
> But what I was trying to do is to prioritise my tasks in two passes.
>
> allocate an approximate absolute priority to me. [e.g. MLO's Importance
> field with 7 possible values works well for this ("Max, A Lot, More,
> Normal, Less, Little, Min" )] And I allocate any Stars (which to me
> means "Attempt to do in the next 2 days")
>
> *Pass #2. *In my second pass, I am looking at a flat (non-hierarchical)
> field with 7 possible values works well for this ("Max, A Lot, More,
> Normal, Less, Little, Min" )] And I allocate any Stars (which to me
> means "Attempt to do in the next 2 days")
>
> view. I am just looking at those items which I have starred. In this
> pass I am trying to decide in which order to actually execute my starred
> items.
>
> So for Pass #1 my allocating of an absolute priority to me (e.g. using
> the Importance field's popup) works well. ==> and *automatic sort,* in
> pass I am trying to decide in which order to actually execute my starred
> items.
>
> So for Pass #1 my allocating of an absolute priority to me (e.g. using
> this case based on the Importance will get tasks into roughly the right
> order and works well.
>
> However, for my Pass #2, I need to create a sequence of which tasks I am
> going to do in what order. i.e. which tasks I am going to execute first.
> This requires comparing the priority of tasks side-by-side/next to each
> other. [Plus in some cases any possible clustering of similar tasks
> together, as this may be more efficient, due to set-up times, mood,
> location etc ] And this requires a *manual sort*.
> order and works well.
>
> However, for my Pass #2, I need to create a sequence of which tasks I am
> going to do in what order. i.e. which tasks I am going to execute first.
> This requires comparing the priority of tasks side-by-side/next to each
> other. [Plus in some cases any possible clustering of similar tasks
> together, as this may be more efficient, due to set-up times, mood,
>
>
> To get clear, in the end users do have decide in which order they will
> execute their tasks. I mean even if you have your 10 tasks with exactly
> the same level of priority in the absolute sense (i.e. of how
> important/urgent each of them is to you), what you then have to decide
> is: In what sequence are you actually going to execute those tasks?
>
> And that last bit will require a* manual sort *of all those tasks that
>
> To get clear, in the end users do have decide in which order they will
> execute their tasks. I mean even if you have your 10 tasks with exactly
> the same level of priority in the absolute sense (i.e. of how
> important/urgent each of them is to you), what you then have to decide
> is: In what sequence are you actually going to execute those tasks?
>
>
> e.g. Can I have a view that is sorted by Importance, but between
> tasks of identical Importance, I can manually sort them?
>
> To get clear, what I am trying to achieve is that I when I do a
> pass over my tasks, I want to flag up the really high priority
> task, and also flag up which are definitely lower priority, but
> which nonetheless I intend to do during this time period (i.e.
> normally today). And I want it to stay visually obvious as I
> refer to and execute my tasks as to which tasks are of what
> 'absolute' priority... And yet at the same time, within the
> rough ranges of priority I then wish to change which tasks are
> of which priority /relative to each other/.
> e.g. Can I have a view that is sorted by Importance, but between
> tasks of identical Importance, I can manually sort them?
>
> To get clear, what I am trying to achieve is that I when I do a
> pass over my tasks, I want to flag up the really high priority
> task, and also flag up which are definitely lower priority, but
> which nonetheless I intend to do during this time period (i.e.
> normally today). And I want it to stay visually obvious as I
> refer to and execute my tasks as to which tasks are of what
> 'absolute' priority... And yet at the same time, within the
> rough ranges of priority I then wish to change which tasks are
>
> Maybe there is a better field to use other than Importance, but
> it would be nice to be able to use keyboard shortcuts as much as
> possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> J
>
> --
> Maybe there is a better field to use other than Importance, but
> it would be nice to be able to use keyboard shortcuts as much as
> possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> J
>
> 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 mylifeorganiz...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:mylifeorganiz...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to mylifeo...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:mylifeo...@googlegroups.com>.
> 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/8540be4e-61a4-47f6-8893-714b8d12ab20%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/8540be4e-61a4-47f6-8893-714b8d12ab20%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
John . Smith
Jan 27, 2018, 4:33:12 PM1/27/18
to MyLifeOrganized
Hi Dwight
Thanks.
For now I am allocating my coarse/absolute priority by popup on the Importance field and I am then manually sorting them twice
1. I sort them manually into the 7 different values of importance. Although this is a slight pain because this can be done visually and only really applies to new tasks, it is fairly quick to do this manual/visual sort, once the bulk have already been sorted previously.
1. I sort them manually into the 7 different values of importance. Although this is a slight pain because this can be done visually and only really applies to new tasks, it is fairly quick to do this manual/visual sort, once the bulk have already been sorted previously.
2. I then go through them more carefully, re-evaluating the priority of each task relative to each other.
Because I am only doing this to my Starred tasks there aren't all that many tasks to process at any one time.
Thanks
J
> <mailto:mylifeorganized+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages