> > But rule 6 says not to apply rule 5 for failed cards: > > > > "If the quality response was lower than 3 then start repetitions for the > > item > from the beginning without changing the E-Factor" > > It doesn't say that. It says that rule 6 applies only to cards with grades 0 > and > 1. It doesn't and shouldn't say anything about the applicability of rule 5 in > rule 6!
As I see it, it does, because rule 6 says not to change the easiness for failed cards, and changing the easiness is what rule 5 is all about. Ergo, rule 6 says to ignore rule 5 in this case. But I think we can at least agree that this description is worded awkwardly and confusingly, especially if it contradicts code snippets! > But if that is ok, because the precise algorithm is not important for what > you > want to do with this data, then there is no reason not to fix the scheduler > now. I agree. BTW, I'm not claiming I'm religiously following SM2, as I've also made a few other tweaks with respect to early and late reviews. The most crucial difference (which is probably a lot more significant than the issue you discuss) is that I add some randomness in the intervals, and it is precisely this noise that should allow us to explore different variants on the scheduling algorithm. My gut feeling is that if you look at the statistics comparing e.g. the average grade on the 'correct' SM2 interval, and those 1, 2, 3, ..., 10 days shorter or longer, you won't really see a big difference... Cheers, Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
