Eliminate task state "Postponed"

Eduard Metzger: During this discussion I learned, that it's not the *Postponed* state itself, that creates so much confusion and complexity, but the **links** that are added to source and target copies of the task. Here's how your idea could work: - Postpone-by-copy *without* appending links! Then everybody should be happy. No problematic syntax, no clutter, but a beautiful state change that looks like BuJo. - And I'd love to see you call date tags "date tags" again, as you did back then, when you introduced the feature. It's the perfect word for a really useful feature.

Eduard Metzger: Could you open a feature request in Canny for your idea? I find Discord a bit unwieldy for design discussions with mockups.

Rhubarb: I also just noticed there is no request for this open yet. Can I summarize all related requests into this (I would merge them into one)? It becomes unwieldy and hard to differentiate the requests around scheduling otherwise and it makes voting hard for others.

Eduard Metzger: Not sure, if this is a good idea. I'd prefer *links* to related requests. For example, the feature request here is about eliminating the task state Postponed. This feature request is ready for a *decision*. If you think that is a bad idea, because you believe that "[Mark as Moved](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/ui-bug-mark-as-m…)" is the way to go, you can simply say: "This task state stays" and close this request. The feature request, and all the arguments in it, would still be available for rereading and commenting and referencing. But it won't overwhelm another discussion. The same is true for feature requests about [terminology](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/wording-more-sys…) or [user preferences](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/user-preferences…). They are ready for a *decision*. If you decide, that the official lingo for date tags is "links", or that there won't be a user preference to disable copying behavior, then so be it. Document the the decisions in the feature requests and close them. These feature requests, and all the arguments in it, would still be available for rereading and commenting and referencing. But they won't overwhelm another discussion. Isn't that the whole point of *links*? Keeping entities separate, but having them available for quick reference? There are enough open questions for the Scheduler itself to guarantee a lively discussion. ;-) BTW, I wouldn't rely too much on votes when prioritizing your work. But that's also another discussion…

Stephen Hryncewicz: OK, this argument I can accept. :-) Noteplan should emulate Rapid Logging as described in the Bullet Journal method. However, if IIRC, there are no "links" in a paper BuJo. There's just a small < or > symbol to indicate that a task was migrated into a collection or schedule into the Future Log. https://bulletjournal.com/pages/learn

Rhubarb: I sometimes use the link to add extra notes to the item that occur to me later on. I’m not following BuJo to the letter, of course, I've just adapted it to my needs.

Stephen Hryncewicz: Interesting! Could you post a screenshot with an example of such extra notes? This sounds like a use case that is not properly supported yet by Noteplan.

Rhubarb: I'm not sure what you expect to see, but… I maintain a 6 month calendar note where I enter events and bits of information which I check every morning and delete the previous day entries. In the example screenshots, I noted down my dentist appointment before leaving the clinic, then added a few notes when I got home. So the dated link comes in very handy for me. Also. I dislike dealing with copy/paste on my iPhone. I find it too fiddly to try and select bits of sentences. A linked item is so much easier.

Stephen Hryncewicz: Thanks for the screenshot. I expected to be surprised. :-) And I was! I find it interesting, how you combine regular notes and daily notes. Your main tool for time planning seems to be the regular note `Weekly Schedule.md`. It has headings for months (`# August`) and subheading for every day (`## Thurday 5`). You schedule tasks with [date tags](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/user-preferences…), so that they appear in that day's reference sections. But you comment on that task in the daily note. I think a dentist's appointment is an excellent example for a frequent use case, that could be better supported in Noteplan. The fact that you keep your appointment in a regular note instead of Apple's Calendar or daily notes, indicates that you had to invent a workaround for a missing or an undiscovered feature. (See for example: [Weekly Planning](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/weekly-planning)) I think one missing feature could be related to the reference section. One obvious choice for your comments would be the task itself: ``` - [ ] 10:00 Dentist >2021-⁠08-⁠05 - [ ] Take dental card and insurance card - Will get results from x-rays ``` But this doesn't work, because the reference section only shows the date-tagged item, not the sub items. (See: [Backlinks: "Show more..." & options to edit/schedule/cancel tasks](https://noteplan.canny.io/knowledge-management/p/backlinks-s…)) The other obvious choice would be notes in Apple's Calendar. But they wouldn't show up in the day view either. (That's not even a feature request yet, but might be related to [Display Calendar Events as List in the Right Sidebar](https://noteplan.canny.io/calendar-reminder/p/display-calend…)) Copy and paste on the iPhone wouldn't be an issue, if scheduling were done right. (See for example: [Schedule multiple tasks](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/ui-bug-schedule-…)) And I find it interesting that your example doesn't rely on the task state Postponed, that we are discussing in the feature request here. It supports my impression, that everybody is confused about Noteplan's workings and wordings.

Stephen Hryncewicz: very interesting approach! "weekly view" is a Mac feature that I miss on the iOS platform.

Rob Grace: How do you "move" a task from a general note `birthdays.md` to a day note `2021-⁠04-⁠27.md`? AFAIK Noteplan's scheduling command always leaves a copy of the task in the source note. My workflow for birthdays happens exclusively in general notes: https://www.reddit.com/r/noteplanapp/comments/lhl3yb/yearly_…

Rhubarb: I think I misunderstood your proposal then. I was just trying to reiterate what you were advocating, moving of a task (from either Daily or Regular note) to the new date. Conceptually it might still be used like rescheduling, but avoids the extra cruft of tracing back to an original copy. But context is lost, in the case of a regular note. (There's a lesser argument that context would also be lost if moved from a daily note, if the task had been nested under a meaningful heading when first created)

Rob Grace: And I think I misunderstood you. The word "move" is a bit confusing in the context of Noteplan. We do seem to mean the same thing: avoiding "the extra cruft of tracing back". ;-) Regarding the other argument I don't see an issue. Even the current implementation of Scheduling/Moving preserves the heading, when multiple lines are selected. https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/ui-bug-schedule-…

Rhubarb: ah, then I think this approach will work. I've never tried scheduling multiple notes at once - it currently seems a little buggy but if the heading could be copied (even for single tasks), along with retaining the option to copy a link back to the [[source note]], then no context is lost if those tasks are moved instead of copied, just that retracing steps is slightly less convenient. Does Eduard's proposal to allow *either* copy or move operations in the task dialog, change your thinking on this?

Rob Grace: I'm amazed how many more variants of moving/copying are coming up in these discussions. I haven't thought of copying the heading, when only a single task is moved/copied. That might be another feature request. Do you want to write it? Your comment about copying a link back to the source note prompted a new idea. Why not just *drop the forward link* `>YYYY-MM-DD`? That would solve an issue of mine: the confusion with date tags. It would still be possible to retrace postponements back from the most recent copy back to the source (for those who want it). But I agree with Eduard's [comment on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/763107030223290449/763112434181…), that "'travel' back" is "rarely done". I like about [Eduard's proposal](https://discord.com/channels/763107030223290449/763112434181…) (see attachment), that it does solve my biggest issue: it would finally be possible to *really* move a task (in the sense of cutting a line of text from one text file and inserting it into another). Yet I still do not think that the tracing feature makes any positive difference for attracting new paying customers. And I don't think, that anyone would stop using Noteplan, if this feature were gone. So why invest all this additional design and developing effort, that the tracing feature requires? Related: https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/user-preferences…

Rhubarb: Thanks, but I'm not aware of making any new suggestions about `<dates`. What am I forgetting ...?

Jonathan Clark: Your memory is fully intact. :-) It was the wrong name. I was referring to [Eduard's comment on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/763107030223290449/763112434181…): "I think this is a good case for a plugin which adds the @move(x) tags for you and adapts the <date and >date links as needed." He was referring to a [comment by mnm](https://discord.com/channels/763107030223290449/763112434181…). Sorry for the mixup, I updated the post.

Jonathan Clark: I want to drop *both*, the `[>]` syntax and the `<date` syntax (in daily notes), *and* also the `>date` syntax (in daily notes). I love `>date` in regular notes. And I'm open for novel uses of `<date` syntax in regular notes. I'm having issues with different semantics for the same syntax. 1a) Interesting to see, that you're also recognizing a separate task state for these in-between tasks, and that you even developed a special syntax for it: `* ?`. I wouldn't mind if Noteplan introduced an "official" syntax for this task state, maybe something closer to Github Flavored Markdown like: `- [?]` 1b) There is a [Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/noteplanapp/comments/lgryzy/feature…) about using bullets for inactive tasks. It's compatible with Getting Things Done. And it allows me to quickly toggle task states with keyboard shortcuts (Cmd-S, Shift-Cmd-S). 2) Couldn't find it in [TaskPaper's reference](https://www.taskpaper.com/guide/reference/). But I love the features provided by your scripts! 3) I find it easy to handle "future tasks" with NP3 as it is. If I know the future date, I simply schedule a task for that day, eg. writing it in that day's day note or appending a date tag in a regular note. But most of them end up in general notes that I occasionally revisit to check for such tasks or in project notes that specify date dependencies (sequences, conditions). I'd love to see *due dates*, but that's a [separate discussion](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/due-dates).

Rhubarb: Thanks. 1a. Interesting: I'd not seen `[?]` in GFM. I'd be happy to use that if supported. 1b. Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Bullets are semantically different from inactive tasks. Lose that and I lose part of the power of NP to mix notes, tasks, and calendaring in a free-form way. 3. There have been enough recent discussions to show that some of us are date-first and some project-first people. Keeping all project info, notes and actions in a single NP note is important. If I have free-floating dated tasks only in future daily notes, then I lose all context about what I've done before it, other relevant info, and what comes after it. I have commented on due dates separately.

Jonathan Clark: You're right, there is no `[?]` in GFM. I'm aware that checkboxes in GFM have only two states, whereas [Noteplan Flavored Markdown](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/click-on-check-b…) distinguishes four. See also these two blog posts by Eduard when he introduced GFM style todos: [iOS Update: GFM style todo support, …](https://www.noteplan.co/blog/ios-update-gfm-style-markdown-t…) and [macOS Update: GFM style todos …](https://www.noteplan.co/blog/macos-update-gfm-style-todos-al…). And [this post](https://www.noteplan.co/blog/noteplan-for-iphone-and-ipad-wa…), where he explains: "Additionally to the normal basic Markdown, a special syntax was added to mark points as done, scheduled or canceled". Introducing an official Inactive task state would address your requirement. There'd be no need to repurpose generic bullets or come with personal syntax like `* ?`. Another ambiguity resolved. ;-) ``` - [ ] open task - [x] completed task - [-] cancelled task - [>] postponed task - [?] inactive task ``` I share your observation that there are "date-first and some project-first people". (I'm more a project-first person. I keep my tasks in project notes, because I prefer the context. I don't like free-floating tasks either, but I'd point a date-first person to a lesser known feature of Noteplan: it is possible to [schedule-by-copy multiple tasks](https://noteplan.canny.io/task-management/p/ui-bug-schedule-…) and keep some context.) One main goal in this discussion is to *reduce friction* between these two approaches, that is apparently caused by a *simple design flaw* in Noteplan 3: `[>YYYY-MM-DD]` means different things for date-firsters and project-firsters: - In day notes it's a link, that builds a trace/graph. - In project notes it's a tag, that assigns date as an attribute. The problem is that both sides, date-firsters and project-firsters, tend to forget to mention what kind of notes they are referring to, when they talk about `>date` syntax: daily or regular notes? This fundamental design flaw in Noteplan needs to be resolved. There are more than enough options on the table. Now it's up to Eduard Metzger to decide, where he wants to go with the app.

Rhubarb: with the latest discussion in Discord #features, it seems the >date syntax still has an important role (when "scheduling" by copy or link/reference) as an alternative to [[date]] ("linking"). So what about your original suggestion, to get rid of Postponed [>]? In light of the schedule by cut-copy-link options that Eduard has proposed: - if "copy", we need EITHER the [>] state OR the >date to be appended to the original task, else we lose track that another copy was made. But then, what should users expect if they copy a task instead of link it? (Maybe there should be a fourth option, "copy and link"?) - if link, then [>] not really needed since the >date ref (required) implies it already - if cut (move), not applicable So, it seems that we could safely remove the [>] state IF you agree that the >date references should remain for both links and copies (NOTE: With Eduard's suggestion of separate date references in the References section of a dated note, the above options now apply equally, regardless of whether the original note was in a dated or regular note to begin with.)

Rob Grace: Eduard really wants to keep schedule-by-copy. Schedule-by-copy-action wouldn't make much sense without a Postponed state, regardless of tracing. So I think this feature request can be closed...

Rhubarb: I suppose you're right - "schedule by copy" implies more than just copying a task somewhere else. On the copy operation, I was eager to give up [>] in favor of ">date" (copy-and-link), but now realize that would leave us with 2 instances of a task on the target date (task reference, and task copy). 🥵