-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Feature request] Dealing with the backlog after rescheduling #175
[Feature request] Dealing with the backlog after rescheduling #175
Comments
Isn't the Postpone function intended and suitable for this kind of use case? |
Yes, but I wonder if there is a better way of doing this, without using Postpone. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
To list the options:
I would suggest @L-M-Sherlock to also make visible on ankiweb and in the FAQ how the user should deal with backlog. @Expertium, could you rename this issue to something more specific, such as Deal with backlog? (I had a bit of trouble finding it.) |
@L-M-Sherlock I support this idea. As for what is considered "large", how about burden (after rescheduling)*2? If the backlog is greater than that, then this message should appear. |
In my opinion, the better way to handle backlogs is to work it off little by little, reviewing as many cards as possible per day. So, I don't use the postpone function for dealing with backlogs. The reason is that the postpone function increases the interval of the card by a specific multiplication factor, which may even result in an increment of greater than a month for cards with long intervals. But, when I clear backlogs by doing as many cards as possible per day, I am usually able to clear all of it within 10 days. So, using the postpone function would mean that clearing the backlog completely would take longer as compared to not using the postpone function. But, of course, this is my way of thinking about the problem. Others may or may not agree with it. Also, to ensure that I do those cards first that are at the highest risk of forgetting, I use "Relative Overdueness" as the review sort order while dealing with backlogs. |
I prefer the method proposed by @user1823. |
So do you plan to implement a new setting, "Maximum reviews/day", into the scheduler? |
This option is already there in the Anki deck options. |
Yes, but I was asking whether Sherlock is planning to add it to FSRS in a way that overrides Anki's built-in setting, just like FSRS's max interval overrides Anki's max interval. |
I think that Sherlock means to say that we can advise users to set the review sort order to "Relative Overdueness" and adjust the "Maximum reviews/day" in the Deck Options when faced with a backlog. Perhaps, we should add this advice to a message box that appears after rescheduling if the backlog is greater than a certain value (as @galantra suggested) but without asking the user to postpone the cards (because we deemed it to be not very useful). The threshold for such popup to appear can be taken as Adding this advice to a popup appearing just after rescheduling seems to be a good way to inform the user as compared to adding this advice somewhere else (for e.g. the FAQs). |
I think we may need a new feature similar to Postpone, but targeting a specific number of reviews/day. |
That R value is retrievability for the specific card, not your requested retention. |
When rescheduling occurs, cards with retrievability significantly higher than requested retention shouldn't be due. Sure, a little bit of it can happen due to siblings dispersion and load balancing, but not to the point where I have like 100 cards with retrievability being much higher than requested retention. For example, my requested retention is 0.8, and if I got 5 cards with R=80-85%, that would be fine. Getting 100 cards with R>90% when requested R is 0.8 is definitely not intended behaviour. |
Just a reminder to do this: #175 (comment) But, there are some new points to consider. So, it is not recommended to start working on this until these points are discussed. As we saw in https://www.reddit.com/r/Anki/comments/16d56xp/spits_coffee/, the burden can also be quite large. So, we probably need a different cutoff. Probably, 1.75 × average daily review load in the past week. In the linked case, the problem was the retention i.e., the user had a very low retention before switching to FSRS and the target retention was high. So, probably, if the the above cutoff (1.75 × average review load) is exceeded, we can compare the true retention in the past week with the target retention. If the target retention is more than 10% higher than the past true retention, we can warn the user. |
What's the status of this issue? |
This feature is now not as important as it once was because we advise against rescheduling all cards on switching to FSRS. However, it would still be a "good to have" feature. |
I think it is a "good to have" feature in Anki because the native feature is more popular than the add-on. |
I think that you are right. So, maybe we should add a feature request on Anki Forums. |
how about a mix of postpone and flatten to deal with backlog such that the user suggests a maximum value for burden and the backlog is dispersed to future days without affecting cards due on that day. |
I think that most users see a huge backlog after rescheduling their cards when switching from Anki to FSRS or from FSRS v3 to FSRS v4. I think we need an additional load balancing feature when rescheduling a large (say, >1000 cards) amount of cards to spread the reviews across several days or a week so that switching from one algorithm to a different one is less "painful" in the sense that the user doesn't have to immediately do a lot of reviews.
Also, someone on Reddit mentioned a problem with rescheduling and a large backlog, but it seems that they didn't make a github issue.
Originally posted by @Expertium in open-spaced-repetition/fsrs4anki#282 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: