I'm not absolutely sure how Mnemosyne treats sinister cards, but the sinister card has the tendency of beeing scheduled together, sometimes. I checked the configuration and it was: * In random order * Most urgent first * Hold 10. * (Re)learn sinister cards on same day, unchecked
Here are my thoughts on the matter: I feel that its okay for sinister cards to show up on same day or close to, when learning, and to fill up the que. I think that this may have an positive learning effect. I don't like if an learned mature scheduled card and it's sinister is scheduled on the same day, or worse right after one another on the same day. Because if I have forgotten the card then, later review the sinister card I usually remember that card, probably just because I just reviewed it's brother earlier. I'm not sure if a scheduled card and its sinister, that is just learned should be on the same day, but it may have an positive learning effect (?). Some cards sinister are as easy as it's origin. I feel that it could be considered to be closely linked to, or as the same as the heritage card. So that when it's sinister card and visa-versa is graded, it affects scheduling of both of cards and are treated as one card with the sinister scheduled alternately. Some sinister cards are more difficult to recall than its origin card, and should be treated as two independent cards, or be weakly linked. Of course the only way to find out if this is the case or not, is by experiments. I don't know if there has been some research in the best way to treat sinister cards, but I imagine that there is not very much. So I think the easiest way is probably initially to treat sinister cards is as two independent cards after they have been learned, and display them on separate days as it probably is today. On 20 apr, 10:51, Peter Bienstman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
