On Jul 13, 6:57 am, Oisín <[email protected]> wrote: > The alternative rule could be that the next card we review is the one where > with the smallest value of (interval/actual_duration).
Maybe that's all that is required. Cards coming due within the catchup window would automatically be deferred until their "risk of being forgotten" was greater than one of the overdue cards. I was thinking more about the case of overdue cards that are failed, and begin to be seen with short intervals. I didn't think those should compete with catching up the overdue cards. But, like you said, they'd just be deferred until their overdue'ness is more significant than any overdue cards waiting to be seen (in the order of their overdue'ness). Similarly, if "overdue'ness" were a field which could be sorted, the user could see cards (descending) from greatest overdue'ness. The user could select a range of cards and reschedule them as new. It wouldn't require a dialogue. It would just be a "best practice" which could be described in an FAQ. That would be easier to implement than a dialogue asking them for a threshold to push back onto the deck as new. That sounds like a relatively simple plugin. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. 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.
