The standard zeros

10-19 Concepts 11 Core Concepts
12

Alternative layout for the standard zeros

Hello everyone! I’ve been looking into Johnny.Decimal for about a year now but, unfortunately, I’ve had very little time to work on it until recently. I am now following the workshop (I finished watching the video in category 44 a few minutes ago). This is my first post here, and I’m going to propose an alternative layout (actually, two very similar alternatives) for the standard zeros. I hope it’ll be helpful to someone and that could start an interesting debate.

TL;DR

I propose to move the area zeros, i.e. A0, into the system area 00-09 and to shrink the system zeros, i.e. 0x.0x, inside the 00 category. This gives you up to 9 more categories and 12.36% (i.e. 891) more IDs free to use however you like.

Introduction

In category 42 of the workshop, the standard zeros, almost immediately after Johnny started explaining the area zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ category), I thought, “I really like this, but wait, aren’t we losing a lot of IDs here?”. The same thought was amplified later when Johnny explains the system zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ area).

I don’t really fear the “Will I run out of IDs?” problem, but if we go in the direction described, I think we’re truly giving away a bit too much (don’t worry, I’ll show you the math below). I like efficiency, and I think the layout can be optimized, so I’m here to propose an alternative.

Premise (on the AC.10 IDs)

I have not been able to find a clear explanation (in the forum, the website, the workbook, or the workshop up to category 44) for skipping the AC.10 IDs. Though, I’m quite confident I grasp the idea behind this decision: just as we reserve category 10 (and 20, 30, …) for the system (i.e. the zeros), we also skip IDs .10 (but not .20, .30, …, and this is where my intuition fails a bit) to avoid “confusing the 10s”.

For this reason, I will actually propose two very similar alternatives: the second one differs only in that it maintains the practice of skipping the AC.10 IDs.

Definitions

Here I’ll give a few definitions to be on the same page for the analysis and proposals reported below.

  • System capacity (SC): 10 areas × 10 categories × 100 IDs = 10000 IDs
  • Wasted ID: An ID that is never used.
  • Meta ID: An ID that is used exclusively for system management (i.e. the zeros).
  • Usable ID: An ID that is used however you want (classic ID).

:information_source: Notice
I will use a lot of preformatted text below. This is because I drafted the entire analysis of this post in my text editor, which obviously has a monospaced font, and I aligned everything neatly. I want this to be reflected here for ease of visualization and comparison.

Analysis: the current standard zeros (baseline)

Layout

I won’t describe the layout as it is the one Johnny teaches and you can find it on the website.

Intervals

Meta areas: 0C
Meta categories: A0
Meta IDs: .00-09

Usable areas: 1C-9C
Usable categories: A1-A9
Usable IDs: .11-99

Counting IDs usage

ID | C | A
 1 × 9 × 9 → Waste 1 ID  (i.e. AC.10)    in each usable category in usable area
10 × 9 × 9 → Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each usable category in usable area
89 × 9 × 9 → Use  89 IDs (i.e. AC.11-99) in each usable category in usable area

ID | C | A
90 × 1 × 9 → Waste 90 IDs (i.e. AC.10-99) in each meta category in usable area
10 × 1 × 9 → Meta  10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each meta category in usable area

ID |  C | A
99 × 10 × 1 → Waste 99 IDs (i.e. 0x.{NOT 0x}) in each meta category in meta area
 1 × 10 × 1 → Meta   1 ID  (i.e. 0x.0x)       in each meta category in meta area

Results (absolute and relative IDs usage)

Total waste: (1 × 9 × 9) + (90 × 1 × 9) + (99 × 10 × 1) = 1881 IDs [18.81% of SC]
Total meta: (10 × 9 × 9) + (10 × 1 × 9) +  (1 × 10 × 1) =  910 IDs [ 9.10% of SC]
Total use:  (89 × 9 × 9) +           0  +            0  = 7209 IDs [72.09% of SC]

Total meta+use: 910 + 7209 = 8119 IDs [81.19% of SC]

Analysis: alternative layout proposal, no skipping of AC.10 IDs (alt.1)

Layout

I’ll describe my proposal in a few words, but I think the example below will be the most useful part for understanding the layout.

  • Category zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ IDs): These stay the same, they’re inside the respective category and go from AC.01 to AC.09.
  • Area zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ category): These are moved into the 00-09 System area, specifically:
    • 10-19 management folder, i.e. category 10, is moved to category 01 inside area 00-09;
    • 20-29 management folder, i.e. category 20, is moved to category 02 inside area 00-09;
    • 30-39 management folder, i.e. category 30, is moved to category 03 inside area 00-09;
    • and so on.
  • System zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ area): These are moved to category 00 inside area 00-09, specifically:
    • ID 00.00 stays at 00.00;
    • ID 01.01 moves to 00.01;
    • ID 02.02 moves to 00.02;
    • ID 03.03 moves to 00.03;
    • and so on.

I’ll talk about the pros and cons after the analysis, towards the end of this post.

Example of the resulting structure:

.
├── 00-09 System
│   ├── 00 System management
│   │   ├── 00.00 System index
│   │   ├── 00.01 System inbox
│   │   ├── 00.02 System work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 00.09 System archive
│   ├── 01 Life admin management
│   │   ├── 01.00 Life admin index
│   │   ├── 01.01 Life admin inbox
│   │   ├── 01.02 Life admin work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 01.09 Life admin archive
│   ├── 02 Home business management
│   │   ├── 02.02 Home business work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 02.09 Home business archive
│   └── 03 Tennis club management
│       ├── 03.01 Tennis club inbox
│       ├── ...
│       └── 03.09 Tennis club archive
├── 10-19 Life admin
│   ├── 10 Me & other living things
│   │   ├── 10.00 Me index
│   │   ├── 10.01 Me inbox
│   │   ├── 10.02 Me work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   ├── 10.09 Me archive
│   │   ├── 10.10 Birth certificate & proof of name
│   │   ├── 10.11 Passports, residency, & citizenship
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 10.20 Health insurance & claims
│   ├── 11 Where I live & how I get around
│   └── 12 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent
├── 20-29 Home business
│   ├── 20 Clients & people
│   │   ├── 20.00 Clients index
│   │   ├── 20.01 Clients inbox
│   │   └── 20.02 Clients work in progress
│   ├── 21 ...
│   └── 22 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent
│       └── 22.01 Money inbox
└── 30-39 Tennis club
    └── 30 Clients & people

Intervals

Meta areas: 0C
Meta categories: 01-09
Meta IDs: .00-09

Usable areas: 1C-9C
Usable categories: A0-A9
Usable IDs: .10-99

Counting IDs usage

ID |  C | A
10 × 10 × 9 -> Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each usable category in usable area
90 × 10 × 9 -> Use  90 IDs (i.e. AC.10-99) in each usable category in usable area

ID |  C | A
90 × 10 × 1 -> Waste 90 IDs (i.e. 0C.10-99) in each meta category in meta area
10 × 10 × 1 -> Meta  10 IDs (i.e. 0C.00-09) in each meta category in meta area

Results (absolute and relative IDs usage & diff from the baseline)

Total waste:            0  + (90 × 10 × 1) =  900 IDs [ 9.00% of SC] (-52.15% ~)
Total meta:  (10 × 10 × 9) + (10 × 10 × 1) = 1000 IDs [10.00% of SC] ( +9.89% ~)
Total use:   (90 × 10 × 9) +            0  = 8100 IDs [81.00% of SC] (+12.36% ~)

Total meta+use: 1000 + 8100 = 9100 IDs [91.00% of SC] (+12.08% ~)

Analysis: alternative layout proposal, skipping of AC.10 IDs (alt.2)

Layout

I won’t describe the full layout again. It is the same as alt.1, with the only difference that AC.10 IDs are skipped (thus, wasted).

I’m giving the adapted example structure, though:

.
├── 00-09 System
│   ├── 00 System management
│   │   ├── 00.00 System index
│   │   ├── 00.01 System inbox
│   │   ├── 00.02 System work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 00.09 System archive
│   ├── 01 Life admin management
│   │   ├── 01.00 Life admin index
│   │   ├── 01.01 Life admin inbox
│   │   ├── 01.02 Life admin work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 01.09 Life admin archive
│   ├── 02 Home business management
│   │   ├── 02.02 Home business work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 02.09 Home business archive
│   └── 03 Tennis club management
│       ├── 03.01 Tennis club inbox
│       ├── ...
│       └── 03.09 Tennis club archive
├── 10-19 Life admin
│   ├── 10 Me & other living things
│   │   ├── 10.00 Me index
│   │   ├── 10.01 Me inbox
│   │   ├── 10.02 Me work in progress
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   ├── 10.09 Me archive
│   │   ├── 10.11 Birth certificate & proof of name
│   │   ├── 10.12 Passports, residency, & citizenship
│   │   ├── ...
│   │   └── 10.21 Health insurance & claims
│   ├── 11 Where I live & how I get around
│   └── 12 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent
├── 20-29 Home business
│   ├── 20 Clients & people
│   │   ├── 20.00 Clients index
│   │   ├── 20.01 Clients inbox
│   │   └── 20.02 Clients work in progress
│   ├── 21 ...
│   └── 22 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent
│       └── 22.01 Money inbox
└── 30-39 Tennis club
    └── 30 Clients & people

Intervals

Meta areas: 0C
Meta categories: 01-09
Meta IDs: .00-09

Usable areas: 1C-9C
Usable categories: A0-A9
Usable IDs: .11-99

Counting IDs usage

ID |  C | A
 1 × 10 × 9 -> Waste 1 ID  (i.e. AC.10)    in each usable category in usable area
10 × 10 × 9 -> Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each usable category in usable area
89 × 10 × 9 -> Use  89 IDs (i.e. AC.10-99) in each usable category in usable area

ID |  C | A
90 × 10 × 1 -> Waste 90 IDs (i.e. 0C.10-99) in each meta category in meta area
10 × 10 × 1 -> Meta  10 IDs (i.e. 0C.00-09) in each meta category in meta area

Results (absolute and relative IDs usage & diff from the baseline)

Total waste:  (1 × 10 × 9) + (90 × 10 × 1) =  990 IDs [ 9.90% of SC] (-47.37% ~)
Total meta:  (10 × 10 × 9) + (10 × 10 × 1) = 1000 IDs [10.00% of SC] ( +9.89% ~)
Total use:   (89 × 10 × 9) +            0  = 8010 IDs [80.10% of SC] (+11.11% ~)

Total meta+use: 1000 + 8010 = 9010 IDs [90.10% of SC] (+10.97% ~)

Pros and cons of the proposed alternative layout

I’ll give some of the pros and cons I’ve thought about for this proposed alternative layout for the standard zeros. Of course, you could find more of both pros and cons, or even argue these. I’ll start with the cons.

Cons

  • Area zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ category) are detached from their respective area.
  • The “focus-on-the-area-I’m-in” concept is weakened (though not for classic categories and IDs).
  • The zeros for area x0-x9, i.e. category x0, are now at category 0x: this flip of position of the area digit may be confusing.
  • The system zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ area) are not the same as before, except for the system index.

Pros

  • More categories are free to be used however you want (9 more categories!).
  • More IDs are free to be used however you want (up to 12.36% more, i.e. up to 891 more IDs!).
  • The “system index” is still as 00.00 (I love this).
  • Friction is added toward the use of area zeros (on the other hand, friction does not change much on system zeros), thus possibly leading to forcing more the use of category zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ IDs), which are by definition more organized (our common goal).
  • System zeros and area zeros are closer to each other, bringing the management of the JD system closer to a single point.

Conclusions

I think the benefits of my alternative layout proposal for the standard zeros outweigh the negatives. Above all, it gives 9 more categories and up to 891 more IDs free to be used. Also, this layout further highlights that one should much prefer to use category zeros over area zeros, thus being more organized.

I’d really appreciate hearing @johnnydecimal’s perspective on my proposal, and I’d love to hear anyone else’s thoughts and counterproposals! Thanks for reading this far.

5 Likes