Thanks Steve, you got me a bit closer to understanding ;-) I found that the 'identical except for dates' entries of mine where not so - some had a 6 day lead time, some not. That makes the difference. At one point, tasks in the future do get a computed (urgency) value less than one. So that I can live with.
What I still find odd, and then you get into the 'math' is that an identical entry, with DIFFERENT due and start dates, even thought they are both nearer in the future, have a lower score than a task with the same start and due date, even though it is farther in the future... I switch the start vs due date weighting in options and this remains the case...seems to me the algorithms could use some tuning on that aspect more recent. Cheers, Grant On Sep 9, 1:24 pm, "Steve Wynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I think you will have to sort by date if you want timed items to appear at > the top. The weighting factors for the computerised priority algorithm are > due date and start date, plus weekly goal. If you have due date set high then > timed items will go to the top of the list, but only in a date sorted order > as far as I understand. > > If you sort by urgency for example, you would need to manually update the > urgency on the task to raise it higher in the list. Even though the priority > algorithm works in the background creating the computerised scores, there is > no filter on score. Mainly because the score is related to a number of > different elements. There is not only the item itself, it inherits scores > from it's parent items. Trying to work out how this fits together is a bit of > a waste of time, unless you are into high level mathematics - if so check the > help on the priority algorithm details. > > I think as Time is a component of Start/Due date, without a sort on items by > start or due date. You will end up with a list of things based more or their > cumulative priority than their time. But you can sort on numerous factors. So > for example my sort for the today view is set to 1) Urgency - descending 2) > Goal - descending 3) Due Date - descending. The only thing that would trump > a timed item for me, is one with a higher urgency or a weekly goal set. But > it will not be trumped by an entry with just the date set for today. > > All the best > > Steve > > ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- > > From: Grant > > To: MyLifeOrganized > > Received: 09/09/2008 11:30:43 > > Subject: [MLO] Re: Possible Bug - Task Not Listed In To Do List When Time > IsEntered > > >Thanks, actually I had found the date range listing option. Your > > >approach works, but I would like to avoid the grouping and > > >sorting by > > >date. > > >AND, there remains the real problem is that most of this > > >filtering and > > >sorting would not be necessary for items with a date if the > > >computed > > >score worked the way I think it should. I still have items, that > > >are > > >in all ways identical (except for one word in the title), that > > >entered > > >on the same day, sequenced for each friday for the next two > > >months . > > >For reasons I do not understand some have a computed score > > >under 1 and > > >some above, and it has little to do with the dates - earlier ones > > >have > > >a lower score sometimes, sometimes not. In anycase, those > > >with a > > >value less than one, come in way at the bottom of the list, > > >where I > > >will not see them. > > >This has to be a bug according to me. > > >Any ideas? > > >Grant > > > > mlour.jpg > 59KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
