Skip to main content

Why An Empty Inbox Is Terrible For Productivity

Mark Hurst of Good Experience has had a deceptive experience. I feel for his sense of accomplishment, but I'm here to let him and everyone know that an empty inbox is a terrible recipe for lost productivity.

It was incredible. It was so stunning to me. I had written off the idea of ever having a totally empty inbox.

- Mark Hurst
The problem here is a subtle lie that none of realize we tell ourselves or others when we talk about the virtues of keeping a clean inbox. The word "inbox". I did all of this some time back, and I was really excited, just like Mark. It wasn't long before I realized I had only made things worse.

Some people may know that I slowly slipped away from Python-Dev lists, and what you wouldn't know is one of the key causes to my lack of participation in mailing lists for some time now. The problem started when I added filters for all my mailing lists and started regiments to empty out my inbox to 0. I sat, looked at my wonderous empty inbox, and spent the next few months continually ignoring the non-empty labels hidden off in the label listing.

Sure, my inbox can stay empty these days, but all we're doing is hiding the problem. Hiding a problem is not a solution.


Oliver Andrich said…
I disagree with you cause for me the "empty inbox" habit works and I donh't forget about the other labels. But only cause I added another habit to the "empty the inbox" habit. I regularly (about twice a week) check these mailing list labels and work through them.

In the end I kept the distraction caused my mailing list emails away from my daily work. And on the other hand ended up with a higher quality of participation on the mailing lists I am active on.

None of the mailing lists is essential for my job in the first place. So I can stick to my habit of checking them twice a week. If they would be essential for my work, I would implement a habit, that I check them once a day in the afternoon. Just as I do with my RSS feeds.

Just my $0.02. The "empty inbox" habit alone is fooling you, in that part I agree with you. But it is still a good habit and has to be embedded in your other habits.

Cheers, Oliver
Jay said…
Just like a real physical inbox if you just use it to collect stuff then it will be a nightmare, if you check it regularly tho you can keep it clean and under control. I have emails routed to different folders. I unsubscribe to old subscriptions to cut down on junk mail. I also check it alot.
Anonymous said…
I kind of agree with the post. I strongly disagree with the idea that an empty inbox is a bad thing per ce, but the way they do it with filtering and other automatic solutions. That just spreads your inbox.

The thing is - the IN-box is supposed to be an IN-box. To me that is a GTD-inbox. everything that needs handling comes there. And in the Gmail/GoogleApps case I get my old dialog mail back with the new one - great for all being stuff to handle.

If I get a subscription to something I want to _have_ rather than _handle_ then thats a "some-day-maybe" or most of the time "reference". But the subscriptions intended for participation shouldnt be hidden away as if they're handled.

BUT.. I do think an inbox empty because its handled is a great thing. I get 50-500 emails a day - and I always get to zero. By a simpel GTD system. When I am lacy I Star/flag an email that I dont want to decide on what to do right away. Most emails I actually handle (NOT answer, handle) immidiately (define next action, do if less than 2 min etc). In both cases, I archive the email - its either handled in my GTD-system or starred for rereading within a day or so.

Thats my way - I know I sort of bought the whole David Allen/GTD concept as it is.. but it works wounders for me..

/Oliver (not Andrich) =)
Anonymous said…
Hi there,

I just found your blog, it was a great read! Just thought it may interest you to know, a while back i managed to find a british labels company who printed me some mailing labels for a really low price. If you are at all interested then it may be worth taking a look at their website.

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.

CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…