Hi Peter, 100% agreed. SM2 as it is, is wonderful. I'm getting incredible results with it, and I'm really happy. Thank you for your hard work. I'll hopefully join the dev team when I finish my studies (probably in 3 years).
2.0 should be the priority instead of tweaking the algorithm. Tweaking the algorithm will probably give you the same result reading maybe 10% less cards. It's not that big deal! Regards, Frank On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Peter Bienstman <[email protected]>wrote: > > I just took the existing SM2 algorithm as it is. > > It is quite possible that what you propose makes more sense, but then, my > intention is only to change the algorithm significantly once a > statistically > relevant analysis of all the gathered indicates that that is the way to go. > > At the moment, I'm focusing on 2.0, though, as opposed to analysing the > logs. > > Peter > > On Thursday 19 February 2009 8:19:29 Francisco José Fiuza Lima Júnior > wrote: > > I disagree! > > > > What is the point of increasing the interval if you barely remembered it > > giving a grade 2? Increasing the interval, you will most likely forget it > > and grade it 1 on the next time, and you will have to start all over > again, > > from 1 - 2 days repetition. > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM, querido <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 9:28 am, Francisco José Fiuza Lima Júnior > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In my opinion, the algorithm should find an ideal interval for a > card, > > > > increasing or decreasing it so that you give it a grade 4. > > > > > > I understand, but hopefully this "ideal interval" can stretched, by > > > some factor, longer and longer until the memory becomes "permanent". > > > It wouldn't be too hard to remember the card for the same interval > > > again, so the sensation of difficulty, and your progress, should be > > > thought of as caused by this stretching. Why do you want it to be > > > hard? Because this accelerates the process of separating the hard > > > cards from the easy ones. They get separated when you fail the hard > > > ones. Stretching enough to cause you to fail some, but not too many, > > > is the ideal, because the easy ones are getting pushed out of the way. > > > > > > Failing cards is part of the process that concentrates the hard cards > > > at short intervals: you focus on the hard cards by failing them, while > > > the easy cards fly off into the future. > > > > > > The algorithm can't be perfect for each individual card, but I am > > > confident that it offers a very effective general policy for a large > > > stack of cards, to prioritize your work for you. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Peter Bienstman > Ghent University, Dept. of Information Technology > Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Gent, Belgium > tel: +32 9 264 34 46, fax: +32 9 264 35 93 > WWW: http://photonics.intec.UGent.be > email: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
