[I know this thread’s old, but it seemed like the most appropriate place for these thoughts as I’m figuring out how to set up my TagTime categories.]
Given the calculations by @dreev in another thread that [quote=“dreev, post:6, topic:4012”]
If TagTime says you spent 220 hours there’s a 90% chance that’s within 10% of the truth
[/quote], then if, say, you only valued data that would give you that confidence level & margin of error at the end of a single year, there’d be no point in tracking anything on which you’d spend fewer than about 36 minutes a day on average (220 hours/year), right?
Most won’t actually value the information only if it’s at that confidence level etc., but it still might help with getting a little perspective about how to break things up. Knowing how much time is needed given the confidence level, etc. you want over the timeframe that matters to you seems like it can help in figuring out how to divide up tags into appropriately-sized categories, avoiding splitting larger categories into too many activities, which might be considerably less accurate anyway. (Likewise, knowing which things you absolutely want to be fairly accurate about might also be a good way of working out what interval works for you. E.g. if there’s a 10-minutes-per-day activity about which relative accuracy is particularly important to you, a 45-minute interval might not be the right fit.)
Anyway, assuming it’s year-end totals I care about, if I’m spending only 5 to 20 minutes per day on something, it’s probably not worth tracking as a separate tag, right? Am I being wrongheaded in my thinking here?