The Hour-a-Day Rule That Made Side Projects Stick

I counted once: I have started eleven side projects since 2021 that I can remember clearly enough to call "real attempts" — not just an idea in a notes app, but something with at least a few hours of actual work behind it. Of those eleven, four turned into something that still exists today: this site, a small template business, a short-lived newsletter I eventually folded into this one, and a tool I built for my own invoicing before switching to something off-the-shelf.

The other seven died somewhere between week two and month three, almost always after a weekend where I'd worked on the project for six or eight hours straight, felt amazing about the progress, and then didn't open the project again for ten days. By the time I came back, I'd lost the thread of what I was doing and the activation energy to pick it back up had quietly become enormous.

I didn't notice the pattern until I went back through old calendar entries and commit timestamps for the ones that did survive. Every single one of the four survivors had a stretch — sometimes months — where the work log showed almost exactly the same small amount of time, logged almost every day, with very few zero days and very few big days.

The rule itself

It's not complicated: cap side-project work at one hour a day, and treat going over as a minor failure rather than a win. This sounds backwards — more work should be better, right? — but the thing the cap actually protects against is burnout-shaped abandonment, which turned out to be the real cause of death for every project I lost.

An hour is short enough that you can almost always find it, even on a bad day, which means the daily streak rarely breaks. And a streak that rarely breaks means you never have to re-load the entire mental context of the project from scratch, which is the actual expensive part of side-project work — not the typing, the re-orientation.

Projects I abandoned vs. the ones I kept

Why small and consistent beats big and sporadic

The honest mechanism, as far as I can tell from my own pattern: a big weekend session creates a false sense of progress that isn't matched by an equally strong habit loop. You feel like you've "done a lot," which paradoxically makes it easier to skip the next few days — you've earned a break, surely. An hour a day never generates that feeling of having earned a break, so there's nothing pulling you away from showing up again tomorrow.

What this doesn't mean

This isn't a rule against ever working on something for longer than an hour — some of my best individual sessions on this site have run three or four hours, usually on a weekend when something clicked. The rule is about the default, the baseline you fall back to on an ordinary Tuesday with forty minutes free before dinner. If the default is "an hour, most days," the occasional long session is a bonus on top of a habit that was already going to survive without it. If the default is "nothing most days, a lot on the rare day I have time," the project's survival depends entirely on those rare days continuing to show up, and eventually they stop.

It's also worth saying plainly that this rule has made me slower at any individual project than I could theoretically be. The Notion template business probably could have launched in half the calendar time if I'd put in bigger weekly chunks instead of forty-five minutes a day. I've made a deliberate trade of calendar speed for survival odds, and for side projects specifically — things competing with a day job and the rest of a normal life for attention — I think that trade is usually the right one, even though it wouldn't necessarily be the right call for, say, a funded startup on a runway clock.

How I apply it now

Any new project gets a one-hour cap for the first 90 days, no exceptions, even if I'm excited and want to do more. If it survives 90 days of showing up most days at that small size, I'll let myself have longer sessions occasionally. If it doesn't survive 90 days at one hour a day, I take that as real information — not that the idea was bad, necessarily, but that I wasn't actually willing to give it the small, boring, daily attention a real project needs, and no amount of occasional enthusiasm was going to make up for that.

The real cost was never the hours, it was the re-entry

When I actually timed myself resuming a project after a ten-day gap, the first thirty to forty minutes of any session consistently went to just remembering what I'd been doing and why — re-reading old notes, scrolling back through a file, trying to recall which of three half-finished ideas I'd been mid-way through. On a project with a daily habit, that re-entry cost basically disappears, because there's no gap long enough to forget anything. Over a year, if even a third of your work sessions are spent re-orienting instead of actually building, that's a third of your total side-project time gone to a cost that a one-hour daily cap mostly eliminates just by existing.

I've started recommending this to a few friends with their own side-project ideas, and the pushback I hear most is some version of "an hour a day feels too slow to matter." My answer is always the same: it matters more than the big weekend that never actually happens, which in my own history has been true seven times out of eleven.

Related reading

Why I Stopped Tracking Every Dollar I Made $1,900 Selling Notion Templates Set Up a Freelance Invoicing Workflow