In the statistics screen, “Review Intervals” doesn’t have a bar for cards with <1d intervals.
I suggest we change this and add a 0 day interval bar as other sections of the same screen do.
This will also mean the word “reviews” will be used with a consistent meaning in the same screen.
Review cards should always have an interval of 1 day or greater. If you use ‘set due date’ to make them due that day, they’ll still be given an interval of 1.
My point was why in this description:
Delays until reviews are shown again.
reviews mean review cards (-is:learn) but see this one from the same screen:
The number of reviews due in the future.
where review means all reviews including is:learn. Isn’t this inconsistent? I would rather have “Review Intervals” include the is:learn cards than not just as “Future Due” does or “Reviews” does.
I agree our usage of ‘reviews’ is inconsistent, but I don’t think the intervals of cards that haven’t graduated is particularly useful to show.
I agree but neither is showing cards with sub day stability in the stability graph.
If you believe it’s not worth changing the graph, may I change “reviews” to “review cards” instead (in the descrip, not the title)?
This is a larger issue I believe, that plagues even the manual. The other day, I read the section describing Set Due Date and it didn’t make sense for a day until I realised “reviews” meant “review cards” there.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought that was requested by one of the FSRS regulars.
Sure. Thank you for your efforts on trying to make things easier to understand.
Expertium did but I don’t think it’s more useful than showing intervals of learning cards. Certainly a bit nicer when we nerds look at it.
edit: submitted a PR.