On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 17:39:52 UTC+2, Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote: > > > The problem with shortest interval scheduling in this case is that a card > with a 5 day interval, due yesterday, will be prioritised over a card with > a 5 month interval that's 4 months overdue. The cards you recently forgot > (or added, although I won't add any until the backlog is gone, which will > evidently take a while longer) tend to overwhelm the long-scheduled cards, > even though you probably stand to lose more by neglecting them. >
The reasoning here is that you don't really "neglect" cards with long intervals, even if you're reviewing them a bit late, as there is some randomness to the schedule anyhow. Anyhow, I'm not against tweaking overdue behaviour, but I believe any change to the scheduler is best done backed up by analysis from the data of the science log, and that's currently not my priority I'm afraid... Peter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mnemosyne-proj-users/-/Lgf0NUtwm6cJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en.
