View Single Post
Where did I say I could not imagine needing more than 6 perspectives? I didn't. I said I was using 6 perspectives. I can readily admit that people could have a need for more than 6 perspectives. I am not keeping it "in my head," but rather have a "to do/flagged" perspective from which I do most of my work, and other perspectives I review on a daily or weekly basis to ensure I'm tracking what I need to (see other posts in the "applying OmniFocus" for good examples of other peoples' daily/weekly/monthly review procedures).

But there is a HUGE difference between "more than 6" perspectives, and 200 perspectives. There has also been discussion here about the whole implementation of perspectives, and whether smart groups might be a more flexible and better way to go about it. I don't have reference to Ken's reply and what his final word is (or whether there was one), but I know it was discussed.

I am a knowledge worker. I am well aware that things are flexible and that they change over time (sometimes, quite markedly). And I'm not trying to keep everything "in my head." But, really, I guess I'm a simpleton because I cannot fathom how defining 200 perspectives would actually make it easier to find the tasks I would actually need to do. It really seems to me that you're spending a lot more time managing the tool itself, than managing the work that the tool is defined to help you manage. Simply the time required to _create_ 200 perspectives would be a huge undertaking. And if there were to be an easier way to manage the 200 perspectives, how could you use and view a realistically large percentage of them in any given day?

I really can't see much that's concrete about your original "urgent recommendation" other than it's scattered, frankly.