And why skipping the duplicate Cards is not an option? I don’t think you’ve addressed that.
If you want that only for browsing purposes, then tags will be the proper way to approach it, not splitting the same cards over different Decks. But this was suggested several times in this thread already.
Because, per my example above, I would like to unsuspend all 4000 cards in Deck B. However, 800 of them are not there because they were skipped. Therefore, currently I have to go through and find the missing 700 that are currently suspended.
Tags aren’t appropriate because Deck B won’t necessarily copy over every card with a specific tag. It also may copy some from certain tags and some from others, but not every card with a specific tag. And so, this brings us right back to having to find the specific ones by Card ID.
I provided the suggestion for a feature which is not currently present, and explained a few times why it would be useful. I’m not sure I have anything further to add to this. The developers can consider it on their own time.
I wasn’t really looking for an alternate work around (which I find to be inefficient). Rather, I was providing a suggestion for a feature
You can make your own tags: deck::A and deck::B. Mark with them the Cards that were included in each of the decks, respectively. Cards that were in both Decks will get both tags. This way, you will be able to easily search and suspend/unsuspend any set of Cards you need at any point, regardless of which Deck they end up in.
That usefulness is predicated upon an example of someone misusing Decks by filling them with duplicated Notes, against the recommendations, in the first place. This is not how the Decks are supposed to be shared, nor is it how most of them are.
If someone is misusing a tool, the solution is usually not in adapting it to an unintended purpose, but in using a proper tool for the task instead. Which is why the workarounds are kept to be suggested.
If you create a Filtered Deck with the following process.
It will create a new “deck” for you, which you can rename as you like.
See here for details. Give it a try. You will see that you do indeed collect all cards that have the tags you need. You will not accidentally miss any.
The cards that are not shared in Deck B can use a tag “deck_B”, which you can include in your filtered deck. You can exclude it in another deck on Deck A, which gives you what you want.
Thanks for the help.
Issue with adding tags to cards in Deck A is that the deck is autosynced by a community. I realize I can turn this off by protecting the tags fields, but then I’d miss out on the updates
Alright, thank you. I’ll try this out as a work around for now.
I think that if developers include the option for the “shortcuts” I described above in future updates as well, it could also be useful.
If you can add fields, a seperate field that has pseudo-tags will help. So you can put #biochem in that field as a tag and search "#biochem" to find all cards with that pseudo-tag.
I think it’s unlikely for something to happen when community consensus is against it. And even then, feature requests don’t happen until some volunteer dev puts it somewhere up in their priority list.
Same issue with the fields. Everything in the notes are synced by the community.
This is why I ask that it be a toggle. Providing greater choices to the community so they can self-tailor their experience will ultimately improve the experience of the platform.
I think it’s an important ask nonetheless, as it goes to one of the core functions of Anki: ease of usability of multiple decks with overlaps while maintaining the scheduling for the cards.
More options > more complexity > actually worse.
Ref: Myth #12: More choices and features result in higher satisfaction - UX Myths
I hope that the ideas that folks are giving you don’t feel like too much piling-on. I’m not trying to pile-on more, but it might help if we explain why folks aren’t on board with your suggestion. It isn’t as simple as you make it sound – it would require a complete redesign of the database, how cards work, how decks work, and how deck options and scheduling work.
I think Eltaurus, sorata, and matta are probably aware of that, and might be viewing your suggestion with the knowledge that it will never happen. So they are trying to help you find solutions that will eliminate the need for what you’re asking. I’m sure you can see that this problem is caused by duplicate notes in your collection. No duplicates, no need for these shortcut-links between decks.
I assume you’re talking about AnKing and the predecessor decks that it absorbed (drew from? subsumed? encompasses?) or about other AnkiHub decks. They usually do a great job with “continuity” from one version/deck to the next, so avoiding duplicate notes might not be as hard as you seem to think it is. They also deal quite well with you moving cards into separate decks. I wonder if solutions for this specific set of decks might be easier to find in the AnkiHub Community – https://community.ankihub.net/ .
But if you’ve already got the duplicates, and you’re certain there’s no way to have avoided them in the first place and no way around them now – you should be prepared to use built-in tools like Find Duplicates to identify and mark notes that are truly duplicates, so you can segregate the cards you aren’t studying from the ones you are.
Fair enough. I’ve been able to acquire some ideas from here that I’ll try out as a work around.
I can ask around the other community as well for specific decks moving into the future if people know work arounds for those specific decks, or just faster ways to find the cards that overlap.
Thank you for your help
Now, with this bit of information, it makes sense, thank you.
Admittedly, I don’t know much about how AnkiHub works, but if it comes to feature requests, you might want to consider asking for one in that community. If the add-on responsible for syncing the Cards is made to ignore tags with certain prefixes, it should allow you to tag your Cards, resolving the initial issue, without losing autosync functionality. I can also imagine such a feature having uses beyond simply keeping track of duplicate Cards. At the same time, it should be fairly easy to implement for the add-on developers. Combined with a more general appeal, it means that such a suggestion has more potential to be accepted, or, at least, might attract other proposed solutions, which wouldn’t require any tentative functionality.
I’ve opened a topic linking this conversation to see if people there have potential solutions.
Thank you for your help
You don’t need to protect the whole tags field. AnkiHub supports protecting custom tags.
Try this option.
That works! Thank you
