Done.
Peter
On 3 May 2015 19:32:54 CEST, "Astrid S. de Wijn"
wrote:
>On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 06:30:03PM +0200, Peter Bienstman wrote:
>> > > > 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 fi
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 06:30:03PM +0200, Peter Bienstman wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Excellent! I look forwa
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:04:55AM +0200, Peter Bienstman wrote:
> > > 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
> > 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
Dear Peter,
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 07:50:44AM +0200, Peter Bienstman wrote:
> > It is rule 5 of the SM2 algorithm that is not being executed at all for
> > cards
> > graded 0 or 1
>
> But rule 6 says not to apply rule 5 for failed cards:
>
> "If the quality response was lower than 3 then start
> It is rule 5 of the SM2 algorithm that is not being executed at all for cards
> graded 0 or 1
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"
I guess the reaso
Dear Peter,
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 08:04:09PM +0200, Peter Bienstman wrote:
> > Worse,
> > cards that the user reviews precisely on time, but fails to recall (grade 0
> > or 1)
> > end up with higher easiness scores than cards that the user can recall, but
> > barely or with serious effort (grad
> this bug, there is in fact no difference at all between grades 0 and 1.
There is no difference in terms of easiness, but cards with grade 0 show up
more often in the queue.
> Worse,
> cards that the user reviews precisely on time, but fails to recall (grade 0
> or 1)
> end up with higher ea
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 4:52:44 PM UTC+2, Peter Bienstman wrote:
> However, when I wrote this code many years ago, I had a feeling the original
> SM2 algorithm could use a few tweaks, especially when dealing with early /
> late review, and the fact that there should be a small difference betw
Hi,
Thanks for looking into this!
However, when I wrote this code many years ago, I had a feeling the original
SM2 algorithm could use a few tweaks, especially when dealing with early / late
review, and the fact that there should be a small difference between grades 0
and 1.
So, I'm afraid t
10 matches
Mail list logo
