Partitioning Reference Filing

C

cfoley

0
I have just processed my physical reference filing as part of my annual review. Something I noticed was that a lot of the folders won't be accessed for a long time. I made a list of all the folders I don't expect to access within a year and it came to about 30 folders which is about a third of my reference files.

Examples include:

* Things I have to keep but probably never touch again (like tax paperwork for years gone by).
* Things that I might only update very infrequently (like my will).
* Records kept out of interest like details of cars I no longer own.

I was thinking of creating a separate archive filing system separate form my reference filing system. I was wondering if any of you have thoughts on doing this. Have any of you gone as far as to try it?
 
Oooooh, I have lots of thoughts! Here's what I do:

Taxes are always kept separate from everything else. Once I've filed my returns I never want to see them again! But before I box them up, I separate them by "Keep" (e.g. the actual returns), "Scan->Trash after (date)" and "Trash after (date)". That way there is no thinking involved when that date arrives.

For everything else, I use an A-Z system. For me, I need as few buckets as possible, otherwise the office becomes completely unwieldy and I have to think too much, which costs me time.

When you need to find something, where is the first place you'll look? When you're looking for your will and you think, "Now, where did I put that thing?" where do you expect it to be? If it's your A-Z reference system, that's your answer. If you really do think you'll look someplace else first, then that's where to put it.

And bravo for processing your filing!

Dena
 
It happened naturally. The first container was full, so I had to get another one. After a while the same division like artsinaction has proved to be practical. Taxes have their own thing. Also, by law I have to keep some of it for up to ten years. So I have a separated trunk with that stuff. Scanning? Way too lazy. I have a life to live, you won't catch me scanning in a pile of crap that is only existing because my country is crazy.

Other than that, I switched to a Noguchi style system. From time to time I take out some of the few oldest files and ask "Do I still need this?", if not I throw it away.
 
cfoley said:
I have just processed my physical reference filing as part of my annual review. Something I noticed was that a lot of the folders won't be accessed for a long time. I made a list of all the folders I don't expect to access within a year and it came to about 30 folders which is about a third of my reference files.

Examples include:

* Things I have to keep but probably never touch again (like tax paperwork for years gone by).
* Things that I might only update very infrequently (like my will).
* Records kept out of interest like details of cars I no longer own.

I was thinking of creating a separate archive filing system separate form my reference filing system. I was wondering if any of you have thoughts on doing this. Have any of you gone as far as to try it?
Click to expand...

I don't really keep a separate filing system for that sort of deep archive stuff. It's all just in the main filing system in order.

I have the things needed in physical paper form like a will and estate paperwork stored in a fireproof safe. I also have a scanned copy just in case stored in 3 different places with one being off-site.

Tax papers are down to 3 physical folders, last year, current year and next year. At the end of the year I scan the old one and shred it and move the current year to last year and so on. Old car stuff I am keeping for my own reasons are just in the reference system not separate.

My scanned files have an encrypted cabinet (for tax returns and other personal or private stuff) and an open cabinet. Single flat layer of folders.

In our case we've been told by the accountant to keep all tax returns forever in scanned form. Ditto for all investment account data because it's mostly retirement stuff and you need to prove where the money came from when you have a mix of 401K, Roth and other IRAs. It's more important when you are required to take out mandatory withdrawals to know what is which account so that stuff is all scanned. Before that it was 10 bankers boxes of papers. I have that kind of information going back for decades but they don't really take up much space because they are all just PDF files now.

Key factor in scanning is to get a good double sided scanner that takes stacks of paper and have a well defined naming scheme first.

I'm still going through everything and also try to do a few folders throughout the year. I have 3 four drawer file cabinet and 3 two drawer cabinets to sort through so it can take a while. I have it broken down into a project with each separate drawer a separate sections to check and sort. I'm trying to make a concerted effort to scan and then shred a lot more of the paper files this year.
 
You are the poster child for reference organization and I bow in your presence.

Oogiem said:
Key factor in scanning is to get a good double sided scanner that takes stacks of paper and have a well defined naming scheme first.
Click to expand...
I worry less about naming old stuff I'm scanning because Evernote does such a great job searching scanned text - even my handwriting - but, yes, double sided stack scanning is a necessity!
Dena
 
I name my files and they are in formats that any operating system can read hence the issue for me to have a well defined naming scheme. I can usually find stuff easily with DEVONThink but that is Mac only and if someone needs the info from another system they might not be able to find it easily without a good naming structure.
 
Thanks for the useful replies.

The point about as few buckets as possible is a good one, which I see came up more than once above.

Adding a second bucket certainly adds complexity. It makes me wonder if my desire to separate things stems from a perceived annoyance rather than a problem with my system. Measured on a shelf, I would have about 70 cm of paper files. I could do anything with them (even order them randomly) and finding a file would still be quick. However, If I had ten times as many files, necessity would dictate one bucket in alphabetical order or it would become unmanageable. There is a compelling argument that partitioning my small collection of files wouldn't solve any real problem at all.

When you need to find something, where is the first place you'll look?
Click to expand...

Maybe this is the problem I really have to solve. Even though my system is arranged alphabetically, I do often have to flick through the files to find what I want. Naming was mentioned further down in the conversation and I wonder if the issue that I really have to solve is poor choice of names for the folders.

About scanning, I considered that a while back (even started a thread on here for advice) but ended up deciding that digital clutter is as insidious as physical clutter. I might well change my mind if I ever move house again but for now I've decided that I don't need the extra task of scanning documents.

Thanks everyone. Your replies have been very useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top