Forums / Ideas

yasuaki.okamoto

I think it's better that priority can be from -1 to 3 and 0 as default.
Because sometime I specify a task to lower priority than default.

Posted 1 year ago

I very much think 1-5 or 1-6 would be good. Keep the 0.

Posted 1 year ago

Why stop at 1-5. Why not have as many as you want (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1, C2 ...)

Posted 12 months ago

I only need on more call "on fire"

Posted 11 months ago

mde1959

Yes please! I am surprised that such a great tool as RTM has only 1-3. Very restricting, and I can't see that this is a big issue to resolve...

Posted 11 months ago

cadetblue

Limiting priorities values to few units is highly uneffective. Priorities are a way to sort tasks competing for resources and to order them (competing for attention). I believe that that priorities should have any possible integer value: a 2-bytes value would be practical and useful

Posted 11 months ago

I agree. I need to know what is my top priority NOW. Having more than one Priority 1 tasks doesn't help me to decide what to do next.

Posted 11 months ago

I'm a huge fan of ABC123(456....) A is your "On FIRE!" C is your "nice to get this done" and 123456789 helps you order them within those categories.

You could also set deadlines for each item when it should transition from being a "C" item to a "B" item to an "A" item.

That and an android tablet version would convert me off of paper tasking forever.

Posted 10 months ago

More priority levels please! I used ListPro for an iPAQ (PocketPC), and that offered 1 through 9. Although -1, 0, 1, 2 ...9 would be even better.
Problem for the developer might be to do with how the original software was structured for the storage of priority data (2 bits?), so a change may be difficult to accommodate...

Posted 10 months ago

alsage13

I would really like this. It's hard to create your own methods when you are limited to 3 priorities. I would really like more flexibility in this area.

Posted 10 months ago

crystal.odenkirk

I have taken to tagging all my items with a number that corresponds to their actual priority on a 1-10 scale. You can then use smart lists to create a list of each priority. Not as simple as having more priorities, but it works.

This could be something that you have an option in the settings to say how many priorities you want in your lists? Then the people who want 5 get 5, I get my ten, puckarocca could have 30... :D

Posted 9 months ago

jcrumley

I think there are multiple feature requests related to more priority granularity. Personally I am going through voting "yes" to all of them :). Some even have copied comments underneath. Since I am using an iPad I am not even going to attempt that and just vote!

It would ideal to have abc-numeric prioritizations or at least more tnumeric priority levels. Check out how many of your users have multiple high priority items - if it's lots then you need more granularity. I would even pay more for it :)

Posted 7 months ago

jmc127

Definitely need more priorities.

Posted 5 weeks ago

nuteater

One option is to make the priority just an arbitrary number, or even a floating-point number. Then people could decide whether they want to use 0 to 3, -5 to 5, 1 to 10 or whatever. With floating-point priorities you have all the granularity you can ever desire. For example, if you have a long list of priority 3 tasks and a few of them are more important but not quite as urgent as priority 2, you can select them to stand out by giving them priority 3.5.

The only problem is to decide how to assign colors to the priorities. This could be a user setting -- choose the lowest priority and the highest priority and a color scheme (blue to yellow to red for example), and the tasks would be colored accordingly.

If this gets too big to implement, just having, for example, 5 priority levels instead of 3 would help a lot, thanks :)

Posted 4 weeks ago