TOPIC: Can thoughts be processed individually?

[edited to change Subject]

Hi,

Thanks for a great product.

Here is my use case:

1) I enter a bunch of thoughts (let's say I enter eleven thoughts).
2) I want to process a couple of individual thoughts, but not all (I will process them later, but these few I want in my action review ASAP) - I'm in a hurry
3) My impression is that I have to process all of my thoughts - I can't find a way to process only a select few.
4) Exception: I can process a select few as long as I start at the beginning and process in order - I can switch screens at any time and cease processing - however I cannot start in the middle of the list.

Is that the use case as it works right now? Is there any way to process thoughts individually, instead of one at a time? In the example above, what if I only wanted to process the last three thoughts I entered, not the eight thoughts that I entered prior. Would I have to go through the whole list to get to those last few?

If I've understood the use case as it works now, I would like to request the ability to process thoughts in any order that I like - and to process them individually.

Thanks,
-- Rique

As you said previously, we try to enforce the GTD way, i.e. you empty from top to bottom and everything otherwise some thought will always be skipped.

You can have a look at this topic to follow the debate:
http://www.trgtd.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1840

Hi Claire,

Thanks for the reply - I did read the topic you referenced, it appears to be from 2008 and abandoned (due to lack of interest?).

So, if I may - I'd like to try to re-kindle interest and perhaps re-open the debate.

I will start by saying that I respectfully disagree that the enforcement of processing all thoughts in the "in" bucket at one time - according to a FIFO model = "strict" GTD.

David Allen says this:

"Collect anything and everything that has your attention in leakproof external 'buckets' (your in baskets, email, notebooks, voice mail, etc) -- get them out of your short-term memory."

"Have as few of these collections as you can, and as many as you need."

"Empty them regularly, by processing and organizing"

What he does not say is to process in FIFO order. Given that inbox items are collected in several buckets, in his model, that could not be easily done - one couldn't easily move from their notebook to their email to their voice-mail to their in-basket - in the order in which they received items for processing. I realize I am stretching a bit here, but please bear with me.

One of the nice things about your "inbox" is that I can apply a topic immediately - that allows for me to focus when processing.

For my workflow, I will be adding thoughts to process in several ways:

-- from meeting notes
-- from brainstorming sessions
-- from Emails
-- from high level project planning sessions

As I add thoughts I will add a topic.

As I process thoughts, I'd like to process by topic - this is faithful to GTD, as "topic" - at least in the way I assign topics - aligns with context (work topics are processed at the office, home topics are processed at home, etc).

I focus on a customer at a time (customers are also topics in my model) - and would prefer to focus on one customer at a time as I process thoughts.

I would like to have the flexibility to think about one topic at a time as I process my thoughts. Or one thought at a time - or one source at a time - and in the order I choose.

In my job, I can easily generate as many as 100 or more thoughts to process in a day - and there could also be days in which very little lands in my "in basket". My workflows frequently would follow this model: Collect (many); Process (some); Process (some more); Collect (a few more) and Process (what is left).

If I have to process everything - every time - it will mean that I will be processing several things several times because sometimes, I will simply not be ready to focus on some of the items until later.

In conclusion, I think it would be very useful to have a means to selectively process thoughts. I believe there are several good ways by which this can be achieved.

Maybe this is not the right forum for this discussion (?) - please forgive me if I posted this in the wrong place and please move it as needed.

Thanks for bearing with me and thanks again for a terrific product!

Best,
-- Rique S.

My only problem with the forced linear order of processing is that it works in an inverse fashion to the order in which e-mails have been sent to the TR collection box. Where this becomes an issue is when I'm sending text messages to my inbox and have to span messages due to the 140 character limit. The multi-message thoughts must then be all processed *backwards*, which can at times leave confusing three word trailers and such.

Simple solution would be to inverse the e-mail import routine so that old messages are at the top of the queue rather than the bottom.

Hi Signata,

Thanks for replying - another simple solution for your problem would be to remove the restriction of processing in FIFO order and to allow you to determine what is processed, when it is processed, and in what order. That would address your use case - and mine as well.

For any who might say it is helpful to work through collected thoughts in FIFO order - arguing that it somehow imposes discipline* - why couldn't you impose your own discipline? If the most effective workflow for you is to process all thoughts in one session - according to TR's imposed order, then by all means do so. But the software-imposed workflow is not the ideal workflow for me, so I would prefer not to be so constrained.

(*this argument was made in another thread on the non-member forum, not this one, I am just "anticipating the objection" based on that earlier thread)

TR developers,

Is there a technical restriction (due to java or NetBeans) which dictates that we have to process thoughts by such a narrow definition? If it is tough or impractical to implement, please advise.

I want to once again point out that I really appreciate TR a lot - this is just one of only a few functionality and/or design gaps that I would love to see closed - someday (soon?).

Best,
-- Rique

riques,


+1 for Yiur idea.

TR need more flexibility in this area imo.




Reg.