The PARA method is a classification system for organizing digital content published by [[Tiago Forte]]. PARA stands for - Projects - Areas - Resources - Archive ## Critiques I like that projects create an actionable lens, what I don't like is that they are too fleeting to provide a meaningful category for collected content. Sure, some of the project reference material will be useless after I finish a project, but most not! I still want to reference how to use Bootstrap after I finish that budget app. Do areas really work? Is there overlap? Resources seems way too unwieldy with so many potential categories. Also, how you think about things changes as you learn more. Ultimately, I just don't believe in any one-to-one mapping, especially when there becomes subfolders. I have a shiny thing. It relates to two projects. It's relevant to my "work" but I might also want it for a personal project. Once I leave my current job the way I categorize it will likely not make much sense. It's relevant to at least three "resource" categories. Where does it go? What is the advantage of having mutually exclusive buckets? Some information architecture principle I read about in Medium once. GTD also emphasizes the need for "hard edges".