Hours Saved by Keyboard Maestro

I posted a similar screenshot on Twitter showing 42 hours as my time saved, but then when I checked my MacBook Air, I saw this:


I'm curious to know what other people's "Time Saved" amount is.

You don't have to post a screenshot, unless you're claiming some absurdly high number, I suppose. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Similar thread was posted 2 years ago

Mine was reset at some point.

09

1 Like

Mine says "55 years saved." And I'm not sure if that was reset 3 years ago when I bought this computer.

I'm aiming for a million years saved.

4 Likes

Mine is at 278 years saved, and that's just on this machine... Wonder what my work machine says.

1 Like

Mine says 70 years.

-ccs

3 Likes

I know! feeble isn't it: but I love the app and what I have on it and those few things I use it for really saves me a kind of irritiation doing it the slow way, worth it for me. I am going to use it more now I understand it better and have some idea about variables: thanks David Sparks!

image

1 Like

I am still a beginner :wink:

However, I don't know if the time saved with a sync will be preserved, since I also perform a clean install every year with a new macOS version.

2019-08-14_01-15-12

1 Like

I was actually thinking I should have Keyboard Maestro report the time saved back to the server, and then I could have one of those lovely live running tallies of how much cumulative time has been saved on the home page. But it quickly became apparent that there are so many folks who have such huge numbers in their time saved that the number would be insanely big. Would have been fun tho.

1 Like

How is the time saved actually calculated? I've always been curious (especially since I'm at 278 years). Does each action have a little hidden amount of time-saved associated with it?

Yes. It's very simple, and not very accurate - it is meant as fun, nothing more (although it is mentioned in the nag to purchase when the trial ends). Each action that runs has some amount of time saved guessed for it, which might vary depending on what it does.

Which means you could create a macro that did nothing a lot, like say:

  • Repeat 100000 times
    • Set Variable X to “hello”

And Keyboard Maestro would “save” you a lot of time.

Clearly there are lots of actions that give too much timed saved, since it is farcical to think that Keyboard Maestro has saved anyone 278 years.

1 Like

Oh yeah that'd totally do it. I have a few that are set up to just... click the mouse anywhere from 10-100-1000 times. Sometimes an app is dumb and just really, really wants me to click and approve a thousand messages about annoying things!

So maybe not 278 years but probably saved me a few instances of ten minutes of mind-numbing clicking in the same place!

1 Like

This doesn’t actually seem insanely high to me. OTOH, I love what it implies about my life expectancy! :wink:

41

[Ouch! Sorry it’s so big! Anyone know why?]

1 Like
1 Like

I should write a macro that keeps track of the time is spend making macro's.... :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Finally a good reason to consider Cryonics. I mean, to not give up the hard-won KM-savings times :wink:
(Just make sure the KM Application Support folder and the prefs file are in the box with you.)

But as said already there, the count is of no worth without the spent time :wink:

2 Likes

I see exactly what you mean Peter; it isn't totally farcical though I don't think. In the olden days it took years to calculate log tables. I think the ones I initially used in my teens were hand calculated. It is a laborious task, try calculating pye by 'hand' as it were. I remember my dad actually adding up columns of numbers, it would take him week to do what an excel sheet would not do in a fraction of a second. IT would have 'saved' him centuries, though obviously he would have found something else to do. We take for granted the huge productivity powers of computing in general!? Means we can now spend 39 hrs 59 secs per week doing 'admin' instead of adding numbers for 40! :wink:

I see what you mean by 'farcical' I sort of argree but it really very much 'depends on what you mean by...'. I am quite sure that it could up productivity by that extent if you express it that way. You raise the interesting point about 'usefullness' though, one well worth thinking about.

As I said before, for me, just avoiding certain 'irritations' is worth the cost of the app, by a huge amount too. I also use automation to discipline myself too, open certain files at certain times: David Sparks has really highlighted this aspect by the way. However one needn't see that totally in productivity terms. It is useful to bootstrap oneself sometimes just to avoid the google suck in.

Sometimes there is just a kind of satisfaction too in having streamlined things in itself as it were: productivity isn't the be all and end all of everything, especially when a lot of us are really quite 'comfortable'. Thanks for the app, really.

1 Like

Ha! Sorry, no, I meant that the graphic was really big! When I first uploaded it, and for some time thereafter, it appeared twice as large on each side as it does now. All other graphics on the page look normal. Not a biggie, but it often happens to me, so I wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

@ErikMH, Retina images are high resolution. You can set the display size by adjusting the markdown image reference, which contains near the front an "123x456" sort of bit representing the width vs height (in pixels) at which to render the image (which involves a bit of calculating to adjust one value in proportion to the other). If you use HTML to insert your image, you can add either a width or height attribute, eg. <img src="https://blah..." width="600"> (you can set both, but that's unnecessary).

For reference, this forum's posts each have a 690px width when viewed maximally on a desktop. The person who can advise best on the optimal size to go for is @ccstone, who diligently adjusts oversized images.

2 Likes

Thank you, @CJK! I’m not surprised it’s to do with retina-lity. Since I use ImageOptim to compress images before uploading anyway, I may as well also scale them first with GraphicConverter. Knowing that 690 is the magic width number will be very useful!