Archiving Complete Actions

[Packingheat]

Hi all, another newbie here. I did a search for info on this topic but
couldn't find anything specific; hopefully I'm not asking people to
repeat already posted information (if that's possible).

Background: I'm a longtime Franklin Covery user (formerly paper
planner, then planner + PDA, finally just the planning software on home
and work computers) but have discovered, as many others have, that the
priority-based, top-down list does not lend itself to the highly
interruptible nature of my work (IT). Also, as noted, tasks that were
C, and oftentimes B, priorities had a nasty habit of just staying on my
list indefinitely. GTD has been helping me address these issues, as
I've started implmenting it over the course of the last week or so.

My question is: when I complete a Next Action or a single Task, I'm not
comfortable just "crossing it off the list". I need an searchable
archive of projects and tasks completed for reference material (a great
function of the Franklin planning system, IMO). Do any of you have a
setup that handles that function?

In PlanPlus for XP, instead of using the general task list, I'm using
multiple new Tabs (@Office, @Home, @Calls, @Projects, etc.) and making
lists within these tabs (you can make new folders that contain notes or
single notes, which is excellent for Projects/Support Material and
single tasks or next actions) and then using the Calendar purely for
the Calendar and Daily Notes functions.

What I've been experimenting with is setting up new tabs labeled
@Completed Projects and @Completed Tasks and moving all my entries into
those lists once completed. I think that will work for what I need,
but wasn't sure if others had better ideas. Thanks much!

[Michael Langford]

If I had your desire to keep track of completed actions, I'd
personally recommend the GMAIL-GTD system. Gmail is definitly great
for archival purposes, and very very searchable.

I would tag completed items with a "Completed" tag when they're done.

http://saw.themurdaughs.com/gtd-with-gmail-whitepaper/

--Michael

--
Michael Langford --- 404-386-0495
The demon that you can swallow gives
you its power, and the greater life's pain,
the greater life's reply --Joeseph Campbe

[Andy Jones]

At work (and I too work in IT) I keep a diary in a simple
word-processing document. Completed work goes in there, as well as
anything else I have to remember or want to make a record of.

Downside: not as searchable as I would like;
Upside: the free-format nature of a diary means I know for sure that
all my need-to-be-saved stuff is in one place.

I guess this works for me because while I +do+ need to save stuff, I
rarely actually need to access it afterwards. ...err... what I mean
is that I can guarantee that someone will ask me about something that
I would forget otherwise, but I don't know in advance exactly what.
So an input-quick, access-slow system works for me.

Andy.

[Packingheat]

Thanks much for the responses. I'll investigate the gmail-gtd system
further. I had looked at it briefly when I was first checking out GTD,
but wasn't sure how well I'd be able to maintain it plus the Lotus
Notes I use for work.

I think I'll stick with the Franklin PlanPlus for now, as it is very
searchable and customizable. We'll see how it shakes out under
pressure, and I'll modify as necessary (another nice angle of GTD).

[Diego Zamboni]

In my Palm, I have a category called "~Projects - done" (the tilde
makes it sort to the end of the list). When I complete a project (I use
the PigPog method -
http://pigpog.com/wiki/index.php/GTD_-_The_PigPog_Method), I rename the
entry to "yyyy/mm/dd - done {Project name}" and put it in the "done"
category. This way, I have an ongoing record of completed projects.

[John]

Although I am using GMail myself, I am careful about what I
send/receive there. You DO know that Google computers read your
messages, don't you?

To the OP topic, ask yourself how many times you have EVER needed to
refer to an old, completed task. I used to be of the archive/save
everything mindest but I am slowly moving away from that. This is for
two reasons. First, I have very rarely ever needed to refer to an
earlier task or calendar entry. Second, saving everything, crap and
non-crap, makes it difficult to find and work with things that are
really important to YOU. This is not just a physical search issue, it
is a mental clouding issue.

What I've decided to do lately is save things for no longer than a
month at which time I decide if it is truly important to me. If it is,
then it gets put into a monthly journal or reference folder. If not,
then it gets trashed.

[Packingheat]

I, too, am a bit wary of the information Google collects, depsite their
"do no evil" statement in their IPO.

Unfortunately for me, there have been many occasions when I've had to
call up old tasks and appointments to prove that they were, in fact,
completed (the curse of being the only person in my professional team
who believes that organization is important means that I'm also the
only one who can prove that something was done properly, which is a
task with which I'm often burdened). I also deal with somewhat
irrational bosses who are eager to blame their employees for their own
mistakes (which I'm sure is not unique to my group), so I often have to
defend myself using old entries in my planner system.

Therefore getting these completed tasks out of sight and out of mind,
yet still searchable, is important in my current position (one which
I'm actively seeking to change). So far, a separate tab for completed
projects and completed task is keeping my lists sane yet searchable
(and PlanPlus timestamps them automatically, which is a nice feature).
I'll have to see how it progresses.

[Andy Jones]

It's not whether they read it, it's what they do with it afterwards.
I have no evidence that they are doing anything with it, so (so far) I
feel okay with that.

I also have no evidence against their claim that a program reads the
mail, not a person. Maybe I would feel different if I did.

[John]

Andy Jones wrote:
> It's not whether they read it, it's what they do with it afterwards.
> I have no evidence that they are doing anything with it, so (so far) I
> feel okay with that.

Right... "yet." The motto of the current board is "Don't be evil." Will
it stay that way?

> I also have no evidence against their claim that a program reads the
> mail, not a person. Maybe I would feel different if I did.

The problem is that once they have this data, it pretty much is too
late for you to do anything about it should their policies change.
Yahoo mail (just an example, not pimping for them) is pretty good, and,
as far as I have heard, does not store your mail indefinitely and does
not read your mail. Does Google give you so much benefit that you are
willing to risk it? If it was Google or nothing, then, OK, guess we
have to choose Google. But there are lots of very, very, viable
alternatives that don't involve letting someone read all of your stuff.

And just my opinion, I find it extremely risky to store the only copy
of important data with a third party that you do not have a more
advantageous contract with. Google mail is free. Think they'll bend
over backwards to help you if someone hacks your account or it is
otherwise fubar'd? My guess is no.

Finally, back to the OP, yes, I can understand your situation. If the
volume does not bother you, then sure, keep everything. It started to
get to me and I let things slip. To be honest, I find the luddite
approach to be the best - text files. Plain ol' .txt files do me a lot
of good. They are universally readable by any major (and minor, to my
knowledge) OS, are small, and can be zipped up easily if they get too
big.

[Andy Jones]

Okay; I confess; I'm only using it to sub to listmail at the moment.
So it hardly matters either way...

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

[Neil Ford]

On 18/08/05, John <john.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem is that once they have this data, it pretty much is too
> late for you to do anything about it should their policies change.
> Yahoo mail (just an example, not pimping for them) is pretty good, and,
> as far as I have heard, does not store your mail indefinitely and does
> not read your mail. Does Google give you so much benefit that you are
> willing to risk it? If it was Google or nothing, then, OK, guess we
> have to choose Google. But there are lots of very, very, viable
> alternatives that don't involve letting someone read all of your stuff.
>

Every mailsystem on the planet reads your mail. Initally so it can
route it properly and with your ISP hopefully to check it for viruses
and spam. Now that may be done by programs, but it's still being read.
And how many people read the T&Cs of their ISPs in detail? So who
knows what it says about what they do with your mail.

Google reading your mail is so they can place appropriate ads
alongside it whilst you read it.

> And just my opinion, I find it extremely risky to store the only copy
> of important data with a third party that you do not have a more
> advantageous contract with. Google mail is free. Think they'll bend
> over backwards to help you if someone hacks your account or it is
> otherwise fubar'd? My guess is no.

All Gmail users have the option of using POP3 to collect their mail
locally, so you don't have to rely on it only being on the Gmail
servers.

Google have a brand image that they have worked very hard to get and
maintain, so whilst the service is free, I would expect them to at
least be sympathetic to anyone's problems. That said, teh system IS
still in beta, so you have to take that in to account.

Personally, I've moved my mail handling to Gmail as I like it's
interface and find it very usable. But I understand the risks and am
taking appropriate precautions.

Horses for courses.

- Neil.

[Sandy Wambold]

If you need privacy for your message contents, encrypt them. Any
machine that transmits or stores your mail could store it forever and
the people who administer the machine could be reading your mail.

-sew

[John]

And how do you do this with Google's IMAP mail?

[John]

No, you are misunderstanding the difference. Of course every mail
system reads your mail. But not every mail system archives all of your
mail, forever, even if you "delete" it, and mines the contents for
data. That's the difference between Google and most others (for now).

[John]

The issue is not with one or two (or even ten or twenty) people reading
the mail.. the problem is a huge compay with lots of power having
access to and control over your personal and business information. You
can gulp the kool aid or sip. I suggest sip.

[Michael Langford]

The problem for me on that is that there are two RBT (really bad
things) that can happen to this sort of data:

Its can be lost

or

It can be used in an inappropriate manner

While the latter is always a possibility, I HAVE done the first RBT
several times through different issues. Google has a very low cost to
make sure that doesn't happen, where on site solutions require more
careful and frequent backups.

--Michael

[Andy Jones]

Given a choice between any number of other companies I could name, and
Google, I'd pick Google. After all, it's not a question of
let-them-read-my-mail or not; it's a question of who I pick to read my
mail.

[John]

Andy, no it IS a question of "let."

Is there any other major free email service that reads your email, and
permanently records meta data about it? Only GMail as far as I am
aware. Any other company would be running afoul of their own terms of
service.

[Michael Langford]

Google is just upfront about it. They're trying to be less evil, and
you're giving them flak over it, assuming their competitors are living
upto a higher bar.

I'm betting their terms of service are written by their lawyers, whose
job is to expressly give them the widest powers that customers don't
object to. Those terms usually either leave unclear their ability to
mine your email for info, or state they can.

Just look at say, Yahoo!'s privacy policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/

--Michael

[Michael Langford]

Forgot my antecedant.

> Google is just upfront about it. They're trying to be less evil, and
> you're giving them flak over it, assuming their competitors are living
> upto a higher bar.
>

> I'm betting Yahoo!'s terms of service are written by their lawyers, whose

[Soulhuntre]

Heya :)

There is no way I would leave my important data on a system I did not
control - that means my PC or a server I administer.

Your best off just archiving them out of your email program to your local
HD. Outlook and Express with do this, and there are some cool utilities that
will output Outlook messages and items as plane text files if you don't want
to store them as a .PST.

Soulhuntre
----------

http://www.girl2.com - my girls
http://www.the-estate.com - my legacy
http://wiki.thegreybook.com - my project
http://weblog.soulhuntre.com - my thoughts

[John]

No, Michael, I am not assuming that the competitors are better. Did you
read the link you gave me? Nowhere in their does it say that Yahoo
mines/reads my email messages. Do they do it? Maybe. But if I found out
that they did then and did not explicitly explain to me that they were
doing so, then I would have legal recourse. Not necessarily so with
Google.

Quite honestly, I do not think that Google is doing anything that is
necessarily invasive CURRENTLY. Howerver, Google is a public company
and its loyalty is to shareholders and making money - not my privacy
and best self-interest. Once they have all of my correspondence
archived and indexed - completely outside of my control I am pretty
much at their mercy to continue to not be evil. And we all know, large
organizations, companies, and governments never change their minds.

[TheOldGuy]

And when the feds arrive at Google with Patriot Act in hand, who reads
your mail, all conveniently cataloged by Google. I'm with you, John.

[Michael Langford]

They can do that at any of the web email providers. Then again, with
echelon/carnivore, they may already have. Unencrypted email is little
more secure than unencrypted walkie talkie traffic.

If you are really concerned with the webmail, don't use it. Google is
no less secure from court order/patriot act inquiry than any other US
company, including all the other companies that hold email. Then
again, I'd go for the greater rule of "Don't do dumb things" under
which falls the corollary "If you're going to do something
questionable, be discreet at least, and don't leave a record"

You can always encrypt your emails. Then again, good luck getting
everyone else to do so with you.

--Michael

On 8/22/05, TheOldGuy <50wo...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> And when the feds arrive at Google with Patriot Act in hand, who reads
> your mail, all conveniently cataloged by Google. I'm with you, John.
>
>

[John]

Michael - yes, other webmail providers have the technical ability and
physical access to read and even index your mail but the are not. Why?
Because their terms of service do not explain that they are doing so.
Google says that they are reading and indexing and they seem to be the
only ones. Carnivore and Echelon, even if they work, should not be
accepted without scrutiny.

This isn't an issue of me being concerned webmail (i know the risks) it
is an issue of people realizing that laws, TOS, and privacy should be
respected and we should be careful users technology. We should also be
wary of companies that want to push the envelope and go down a path
that is tremendously tempting and easy to abuse.

This is also not an issue of anyone wanting to do something
questionable. Please do not characterize the argument this way. Should
it be assumed that I have something to hide if I do not want someone
reading my email or otherwise compiling bites and bytes of info on me?

I shouldn't have to encrypt my email to be reasonably certain that
people are not reading it. If it is the US government, then I should be
protected by the fourth ammendment to the Constitution -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just because people/governments can do something doesn't mean that they
should or that it is right.

[Michael Langford]

Legally speaking, you apparently be live a company has to state they
are indexing your emails to be able to do so. I wish this were the
case, however I doubt that it is.

I believe it is at best an unsolved question for the courts, however
more likely the reality is "It's on their computer, they can use their
index for commercial purposes as long as they state something about
third party business relationships" (which yahoo DOES in their Privacy
Statement and TOS). If something isn't specified in the US by law or
contract, then parties are pretty free to do what they will with
personal info when its not covered by the new banking/insurance or
HIPPA laws.

Do you remember when yahoo stopped allowing free POP3 access? One day
it was "Sup rise! POP3 Email is no longer allowed for non-paying
customers. Penny up $30 if you want your email off our servers"

I'm not saying you're unaware of the dangers of online email. I think
you're punishing google for being forthright. You're advocating for
their competitors who could be doing the same exact thing under their
current terms of service.

I'd love for companies to not have free run with my info. But while
they do, google is at least allowed by their IPO to not be evil.

--Michael

--
Michael Langford --- 404-386-0495
The demon that you can swallow gives
you its power, and the greater life's pain,

the greater life's reply --Joeseph Campbell

[Gretchen Dziengel]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:01:30AM -0700 or thereabouts, John wrote:
> Michael - yes, other webmail providers have the technical ability and
> physical access to read and even index your mail but the are not. Why?
> Because their terms of service do not explain that they are doing so.
>

Umm...do their terms of service say they AREN'T doing so?

Yahoo:
Yahoo! collects personal information when you register with Yahoo!, when
you use Yahoo! products or services, when you visit Yahoo! pages or the
pages of certain Yahoo! partners, and when you enter promotions
or sweepstakes. Yahoo! may combine information about you that we have
with information we obtain from business partners or other companies.
Yahoo! uses information for the following general purposes: to customize
the advertising and content you see, fulfill your requests for products
and services, improve our services, contact you, conduct
research, and provide anonymous reporting for internal and external
clients.

COLLECTS PERSONAL INFORMATION WHEN YOU USE YAHOO PRODUCTS OR SERVICES
Sounds like mail to me.
TO CUSTOMIZE THE ADVERTISING AND CONTENT YOU SEE
Sounds like they scan your mail and target the ads to you.

Hotmail:
We may collect information about your visit, including the pages you
view, the links you click and other actions taken in connection with MSN
sites and services. We also collect certain standard information that
your browser sends to every website you visit, such as your IP address,
browser type and language, access times and referring Web site addresses.
Microsoft collects and uses your personal information to operate MSN and
deliver the services you have requested. These services may include the
display of customized content and advertising based upon the information
we have collected. In order to provide services in conjunction with
other Microsoft products or services, personal information collected on
MSN may be accessed and used by other Microsoft services as necessary to
provide such services. Any use of such information within Microsoft will remain
subject to the limitations of this privacy statement.

INCLUDING THE PAGES YOU VIEW
Could mean mail...lawyers will make it mean mail
MAY INCLUDE THE DISPLAY OF CUSTOMIZED CONTENT AND ADVERTISING
Sounds like they scan your mail and target the ads to you.

> I shouldn't have to encrypt my email to be reasonably certain that
> people are not reading it. If it is the US government, then I should
> be protected by the fourth ammendment to the Constitution -
>

Let's put this in perspective. You shouldn't have to put your mail in
envelopes either. Why not send everything as postcards? Your fourth
ammendment rights protect those postcards. Not only that, but every
post office that post card goes through can at no additional effort, keep a
copy of it. Now figure in that the "post office" in this case, isn't run by
the government, but by several companies. Would you honestly think that
they wouldn't keep a copy of your mail?

As far as Gmail goes, I do trust google because so far they have
delivered on their promise and done no evil. I copy all my e-mail there, but any
thing that I would have a problem with someone, anyone seeing, I
encrypt.

It's nice to see a company that tells you, "Hey Look at this!" and
gives you a choice to opt out of them phoning your data home. (Google
Desktop Search & Google Toolbar) I'd much rather store my e-mail there
than with a company that phones home every time you search your own
computer. Yep, every time you search files and folders in Windows, it
tries to connect to the internet.

I don't mean to sound too harsh, I'm just really sick of people
complaining about Google's practices.
--
Gretchen
_____________________________
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X against HTML e-mail
/ \

[TheOldGuy]

But I can delete, and do (at least that's what I think I'm doing when I
say delete from server), the email on other servers. It is my
understanding that Gmail is not only kept but indexed as well.
Granted, once anything hits the net it can be intercepted, hacked,
copied, rerouted, etc. no matter what service I use. Just saw an
article that personnel info re US military officers had been hacked so
the bottom line is no server or service is totally secure. On the
other hand, why make it any easier to get the info.

I think this horse is sufficiently beaten. Everyone has his/her
opinion about security and risk tolerence and that's the way each will
operate.

[Bill Simoni]

Why don't we look at the documentation instead of guessing?

From : https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7401&query=delete&topic=0&type=f&ctx=en:search

Once you delete a message, it's gone for good. If you think it's possible you'll need a message ever again, we recommend you archive the message rather than delete it.

If you really need to delete a message, you can do so at any time. Here's how:

   1. First, move the message to 'Trash.' (You can still search for and retrieve messages in 'Trash.')
          * Open a conversation.
          * Click 'Show options.'
          * Click 'Trash this message.'

   2. Then, select 'Delete Forever.' (You won't be able to recover a message after completing this step.)
          * Click 'Trash' along the left side of any Gmail page.
          * Select the message.
          * Click 'Delete Forever.'

[Packingheat]

Woooohoooooo! I started a thread that has taken on a completely
different life of its own! I feel like a proud, absent father. :)

[John]

Grechen, your entire post is based on a misunderstanding of TOS. Terms
of Service do not usually state what is not being done because they
would be THOUSANDS OF PAGES long. Might mean, may mean... to what
illogical extreme do you want to go?

Yahoo and MSN may track what pages I go to but, according to their TOS,
they do not scan my mail and so THEY CANNOT SCAN MY MAIL! If the TOS
change to say they do, then they can.

Regarding encrypting my email, I was responding the statements that,
paraphrasing here, I was a moron to think that everyone at every email
provider and their extended families were NOT reading my email. I was
trying to explain that there is an expectation of privacy.

"As far as Gmail goes, I do trust google because so far they have
delivered on their promise and done no evil. I copy all my e-mail
there, but any thing that I would have a problem with someone, anyone
seeing, I encrypt."

Okay... let me say this again.. it isn't a matter of ONE OR TWO emails
being read. I disagree with and think it is dangerous, if only as a
precedent, for a company to scan ALL OF YOUR EMAIL and INDEX EVERY
WORD. That data exists in a space completely outside the senders and
receivers control.

"Let's put this in perspective. [...] Would you honestly think that

they wouldn't keep a copy of your mail?"

I really don't get the point of this example, but I'll close by saying,
if keeping a copy was not in the TOS, then no, I would wouldn't EXPECT
them to keep a copy of my mail... and if it came out that a copy was
being kept, they could be sued.

[John]

"I'd love for companies to not have free run with my info. But while
they do, google is at least allowed by their IPO to not be evil."

You make it sound like you have no choice. It isn't Google/Yahoo/MSN or
nothing. There are plenty of small, local mail providers/web hosts. You
can talk to these people and get the straight dope on what happens with
your data.

I trust people, not companies.