On Jul 11, 12:02 am, Peter Bienstman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:11:33 PM pharmtech wrote: > > > I agree. But, isn't there a way to catch up in a more efficient manner > > than just working through the backlog of cards in their order due? > > When I said 'most urgent first', I did not mean 'most overdue first', but > rather > 'shortest interval first'.
That's great. I thought urgent meant "most overdue." I never thought it was as simple as "shortest interval." I don't think it's the same thing as "risk of forgetting" (overdue / interval). For example: If you have a card with a 14-day interval come due on the first day of your vacation, and another card with a 14-day interval come due on the 14th (last) day of your vacation, obviously the first one is at much greater risk of being forgotten. But, their intervals are the same. When you begin catching up the next day, the one due yesterday is only 7% overdue. Whereas the one which was due on your first day of vacation is 100% overdue. I still think a "risk of forgetting" factor (overdue / interval) would be a more meaningful way to prioritize the catchup effort. Am I wrong? -- 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.
