On Friday, April 20, 2012 01:31:39 AM Scott Youngman wrote: > I suspect the source of the problem is that Mnemosyne is trying to > fill its "quota" of scheduled and unmemorised cards from the very > small pool, and that overrides the "no sister cards" rule.
That is indeed how it is implemented. > I would prefer that Mnemosyne prioritise "no sister cards" over "meet > the quota." It would avoid sister cards by showing fewer cards than > might otherwise be allowed. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of other people on this. My original thought would be that it would be surprising for people to see that they did not get any more new cards to study, even though the 'unmemorised' counter was not zero. One possible scenario would be a popup to ask the user which behaviour he prefers as soon the queue starts to run empty. > One solution would probably be to reduce the setting for number of non- > memorised cards held in my hand, Another alternative is using a saved set where e.g. the production cards are disabled and only recognition cards are active. Peter -- 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.
