genuine question about weekly update that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
genuine question about weekly update that I am slightly embarrassed to ask — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice.
The attribution problem, which is the reason most logs on this board cannot answer the question their owner is asking.
If dose, training, intake and sleep all changed in the same fortnight, no analysis of the resulting numbers can tell you which one moved the outcome. That is not a limitation of your spreadsheet; it is a limitation of the design.
The fix is unglamorous: change one thing at a time, leave it long enough to see, and annotate the weeks where something else intruded anyway — because life will intrude. A log with honest annotations answers questions. A log with four simultaneous changes and a confident conclusion is the most common thing posted here, and it does not.
A log is only interpretable if the conditions are consistent. Same day, same time, same state, same scale — otherwise you are recording measurement variability rather than change.
Contemporaneous records do not drift; reconstructed ones do, and the drift is systematic rather than random because memory smooths.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Annotation is what makes a log survive contact with your future self. A single note beside an unusual week saves an hour of puzzled reconstruction later.
[removed by moderator]
Agreed that consistent conditions matter more than frequency. Daily weights under varying conditions are noise.
annotate the weeks where something else changed
Agreed that consistent conditions matter more than frequency.
Disagreeing with this bit: daily weighing gives you noise and costs you something.
Cosigning on missed weeks. Leaving them blank makes the whole series misleading.
Disagree with daily weighing. You are logging fluid, and the emotional cost is real for very little information.
This. Annotating the weeks where something else changed is what makes the log interpretable later.
I would not draw a trend line through that. Two points and a gap is not a series.
Right, and the payoff arrives around month six when a pattern becomes visible that nobody could hold in their head.
Added the Log flair and a date range to the title so it is findable later.
Push back: a log with four variables changing at once cannot attribute anything to any of them.
Wrote the concentration into the log as well as on the vial. Have referred back to it more than once.
Yes — log what happened rather than what you intended. My retrospective entries were quietly wrong every time.
Missing entries recorded as blanks preserve the shape of the series. Dropping them silently makes the remaining points look more regular than they were.
Choose a format you will still be able to open in two years. Plain text or a spreadsheet you export beats an application that may not exist.
Attribution requires that one thing change at a time. A log with dose, training and intake all moving in the same fortnight cannot assign anything to any of them.
- 1Annotation is what makes a log survive contact with your future self. A…7 comments in this branch · started by u/rosa_sandvik