GMail’s latest feature, Priority Inbox, was rolled out this week to much fanfare, amidst claims from Google that it will speed email processing and reduce information overload. The fact that it produces neither result, in spite of the latest secret technology it uses, could help us all learn some important lessons about productive email management.
Google says that its internal testing revealed that the tool saves the average person some 6 minutes per day.
It’s hard to see how, when you realize that all the tool is doing is reshuffling you Inbox email. To draw a simple analogy, imagine your postman delivering your mail in two batches (assuming all the junk mail has been tossed away.) One batch is tied up with string and marked “high priority.” The other batch sits in a small box and is marked “low priority.”
While this would be a nice service, it would hardly produce any savings in time or effort. Whether you start with the high or low priority items makes hardly any difference to the end result — each piece of mail must still be opened and read, and some decision must be made about the information it contains.
He could also color-code it, alphabetize it and sort it by weight, zip code and size, but so what?
At the end of all that activity, you’d still have the same amount of time to process the entire lot. If this sounds a bit like what my Mom called “playing with your food before eating it” then it should… because that’s all it is; a mildly comforting convenience that makes no difference to the time it takes to process your email, or to the real issues of information overload.
Here’s what probably happened: a bunch of Googleheads sat around and figured out that they could apply the technology used in Spam filtering to the problem of cutting informationa overload by sorting user’s Inboxes. No-one went the next step to ask the obvious question: “What new habit or behavior change are we trying to promote?”
When you look at it from that perspective, it’s easy to see that the new tool could promote some bad habits. By now, everyone knows that the Zero Inbox is better to have than an Inbox that is filled with tens of thousands of messages. To those who aren’t careful, Priority Inbox will make it easier to process the highest priority emails, leaving the low priority ones to languish for “later.” This will lead to even further email overload, as illustrated in this example.
The average working professional gets over 140 emails per day, and let’s imagine that 20 of those are of high priority. That leaves 120 emails of low priority, which will be ignored on any given day. On the following day, if the same actions are repeated, that number of unread low priority email grows to 240, and then to 360 by the next. “Dealing with the highest priority emails only” is precisely the habit that the Zero Inbox concept was meant to fix, and encourages users to accumulate email in their Inbox.
The average user of Gmail Priority Inbox might very well make things worse for themselves and others, simply because Google hasn’t done its homework, and figured out exactly what new habits they are asking the user to adapt.
Luckily for us, there are some good lessons to learn in all this.
1. Habit First, Technology Second
There is more new technology coming at us each day, and it’s a bad idea to evaluate its value to us based on who created it, how fascinating it is or how well it works. Instead, we need to focus our attention on our habit patterns, and ask ourselves “Which beneficial habit change will this new technology facilitate?” and “Can I make the habit changes that are needed?” Only then should we look at the technology that will help us. Too often, we have it all backwards, deciding to use a new technology and leaving the habits to sort themselves out. Witness the problem on our roads of texting while driving as a perfect example of a poor technology-driven habit change.
2. Productivity First, Convenience Second
As we evaluate innovations, it’s easy to be distracted by the cool factor. Mobile TV, for example, is becoming a reality, but it’s hard to imagine that anyone will be more productive because they carry a television with them to every meeting, conversation and workshop. We need to be ruthless with our attention, and ensure that the tools we use everyday actually make us more productive, rather than adding a little convenience where it’s not needed.
3. Focused Attention First, Distractions Second
Many studies show that our best work comes from quiet focused activity, and definitely not from jumping between random pings, rings, buzzers, beeps and vibrations. We need to pick tools and devices that will help us manage our attention so that we do good work, rather than those that are designed to take us away from what’s important to other stuff that catches our attention simply because we let it.
There is no end to the innovations that are coming our way, and the rest of our lives are going to be filled with increasingly fascinating breakthroughs. There will be more “Productivity Inboxes” that get the attention of the press, as each company pushes the envelope in order to make more money.
However, these innovations must all be filtered before they ca be applied to our individual circumstances, and we must be the ones to decide how to impact our habits, productivity and attention so that we end up with the end-results we want in all areas of our lives.

















There seems to be a rising sentiment (watching the Twitter stream) that this feature doesn’t deliver. What has your experience been?
not useless for everyone…
my wife signs up for a million “mail me a coupon” services, but WILL NOT read them at all until she has a need to place an order. Then she searches her GMail for the best coupon code. Meanwhile, important emails get lost inbetween unimportant, and are overlooked when she visually scans her inbox. I have set up some labels, but they just don’t catch everything. Just to reference, her inbox has over 6000 UNREAD emails. She has no interest in archiving them. As a stay at home mom, email inbox efficiency is not her thing. Priority Inbox is perfect for the way she utilizes email.
Your position is true IF the user knows about Inbox Zero AND chooses to use that method. In some ways, this is Google’s way of pushing ONE inbox management strategy into people’s hands, even if it isn’t the one many Lifehack fans use.
In absence of Inbox Zero, the average user left with dozens of unread messages faces two options: A) read all messages in one order or another (in which case your comment of it taking the same amount of time is valid) or B) try to figure out what’s important and leave the rest alone. My suspicion is that Google is targeting people who use strategy B. What I don’t know is how many people use that strategy, but I know quite a few at my workplace do, sadly…
Hi Francis,
Great summary. And spot on. As a GTD practitioner and teacher for many years already – I’m not at all surprised that this ‘we got a new feature solving all your problems’ approach is not working. And it proves something else: Google underestimates reality. They don’t know what REAL productivity is about. Bad news for the enterprises that try Google in their company.
Anyone expecting their email to do the work for them is an idiot in the first place.
Opt out.
I’m not sure I agree.
I think what Priority Inbox does, at least once trained well enough to be somewhat reliable in its ranking, is provide two different focus experiences. And you’re assuming neither that people will develop different habits, nor that it might take less time to deal with messages in certain arrangements.
When I read my e-mail, I have to assess whether something is worth reading. I do not read all e-mails (especially since I get a hint of the message in the space after the subject line in the Gmail listing for the message), but, rather, I skim for messages that are worth reading. I actually have always had the habit of reverse-sorting my messages – I cut the fluff actively by immediately reporting spam and archiving irrelevant messages, so I can then read through “important” messages and decide which ones to deal with in what ways. This means, *any* time there’re any number of new messages in my inbox, I have to sort through them all.
With Priority Inbox, I should be able to skip the sorting phase, and ignore non-priority messages most of the times I’m checking my inbox. This means that I can deal with all of them in a bulk (most of them don’t require a response, but convey short-term information or are entirely irrelevant).
So, Priority Inbox will save me time if either that sorting process is easier to do “in the zone” (which I strongly suspect it is, but haven’t had Priority Inbox long enough to really have any idea if it will be). And, meanwhile, it can let me neglect the lower-priority messages whenever I check my mail. This means either I can check my mail more often (expected time lost to a mail check will be reduced), increasing how quickly I can respond to important messages, or that I can check just as often but spend less time on most of the checks, thus staying more in the flow of the actual primary task I’m doing, which rarely revolves around e-mail.
I think it’s too early to tell, and, like Gmail to begin with, and many of its recent features, it’s going to depend on habits, and will work better for some than others. But, I’m upbeat about not having to scan through semi-spam most of the time I’m reading e-mail, so I expect Priority Inbox to make me a little happier, if nothing else.
Thank you so much. You’ve accurately described why I don’t care about the Priority Inbox. Other than the fact that it doesn’t show your unread count in the tab like the normal inbox does, you still end up having to read everything anyway. It seems like Google came up with a solution to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and it doesn’t even solve the imaginary problem.
It works just fine assuming you understand how to use it. It’s great for its intended usage.
Specifically, once trained correctly, it separates out the email you should deal with right away and puts the rest in a bucket for you to deal with when you have the time.
It doesn’t solve email overload problems, nor does it contribute. Your example of the 120 unprocessed emails is contrived. You’re making the assumption that low priority is never looked at, which is a failing in the way the person treats that bucket.
The same kind of behavior can replicated in an Inbox Zero environment by having a low priority label that someone seemingly intentionally permanently ignores. The difference of course is that you didn’t need to sort into that label (which is actually a time savings win).
For someone with a very busy day that can only process email in very short bursts for stretches of of time, this is a big help. They can process email that genuinely deserves immediate attention without lower impact to their busy periods.
You really should have focused on the incorrect behaviors that abuse this tool rather than blame the tool itself, which is useful.
My experience matches up with what you predict, Mr. Wade. After using Priority Inbox for only a few days, I accidentally selected the standard inbox view while reading my mail, and I felt a surprising rush of relief when the page view returned to the flat list of messages, newest at top. It was then that I realized how much psychological stress had been added by using 3 inboxes simultaneously (the high priority, starred, and etc.) Switching between the three is just one more “task” to do!
I think the fundamental flaw is, as you’ve suggested, there is really no such thing as unimportant email. That’s called spam. The rest is something I’ve invited, one way or another, into my information stream and it has to be dealt with.
As far as the technology/habit relationship, you predict that this technology may likely encourage a bad habit of ignoring mail. I agree, and will add that for those who already ignore a lot of mail but want to ignore the fact that they ignore it, Priority Inbox is just the ticket!
I have been using a technology within Outlook called C-MAIL, a product of Messagemind that has automated features facilitating focused attention and productivity. Over and above C-MAIL’s dynamic prioritization that categorizes and organizes email into focused views, it assists in better managing task lists through its workflow management component. Habits are not the easiest thing to change, however, this product makes acquiring productive habits easy.
@Derik — the problem I have is that the tool doesn’t deliver what it promises… i.e. to save time and reduce information overload. It does other things well enough, and I agree with you there. I go a bit further and say that no matter how you use it, you’ll never achieve the outcomes they promise in the promo video. I’m open to see how _anyone_ can use it to achieve these promised outcomes. So far, there are lots of people that like it, but no-one has shared how it helps them in the ways I mentioned in the first paragraph.
@Bryan — I agree with your last statement — “a little happier” — that echoes my experience. My issue is not that the tool is useless, but that Google has hyped up the results beyond what it can possibly deliver.
It’s a nice tool — and I use it — but it doesn’t deliver on its promises. I’m open to see how it might… let us know whether or not it does at some point with a comment here.
@Mike – let us know how that works for her. Many others find that they end up putting off the low priority emails for “later”… which never comes. If they take the next step and simply assign those low priority emails to their spam folder, then they would be able to really save time, but most won’t because there’s some reason they are receiving those emails — while they aren’t reading them, they still want to get them. Of course, this example might not apply in this case — but let us know.
@Jason — I know! I know someone who had 40k emails in her Inbox and somehow all my emails to her ended up in the unread/unreplied / left alone “zone” of her Inbox — which wasn’t what she intended (I hope!) My issue with Google is that they promote this feature carelessly — and I am yet to see how _anyone_ can reap the promises they made to users in the promo video… and I have read hundreds of posts on the topic so far.
Now, (assuming I’m right,) how could they have made an obvious mistake like that????
> each piece of mail must still be opened and
> read, and some decision must be made about
> the information it contains.
Why?
I dump probably 60% of my paper mail straight into the recycling, unopened… because I can tell from the envelope whether it’s likely to be of no relevance to me.
Likewise, probably 60% of my email gets deleted because I ONLY NEED READ THE SUBJECT AND SENDER to determine whether it’s worth opening or not.
Google Priority inbox has, for me at least, helped come up with a way of pre-classifying my messages to determine how seriously I should take them. Yes, it took a couple of weeks of hitting the “prioritise this, de-priortise that” button while reading to make it work well, but now it’s trained, it suits me tremendously.
There again, my clients have come to realise that if they need a quick response, they are welcome to phone me any time of the day or night…. but if it’s not important enough to interrupt me, then they should assume that I will check emails about once a week.
Yeah I think you are making some assumptions here about how people use email that are not universal. I delete the majority of my emails without reading them. That’s not because they’re spam. Its because I am on several email lists for my various positions and responsibilities that sometimes contain important information, but often are simply emailing out FYI stuff or notifications that don’t require any action from me. I love how Google priority inbox can tell if a sender sent something just to me or to a large group and categorizes it accordingly. It definitely saves me time when I can quickly scan the “low priority” emails and either delete them all or mark them as read, rather than having to pick out the high priority ones myself.