No one needs to understand it. We’ll name it default. No explanation. And maybe it will create the path for a “Custom” sort order too. I mean there will be “Default” and there will be “Custom”.
1 Like
The further the card is in the backlog, the more this connection is visible and vice versa.
Not necessarily. The card may have more than D only because this is an old card and it has already failed a couple of times.
The earlier the card was entered, the more S it will have. But this may not happen with D.
R: If you have a large Backlog, then the cards that you constantly fail will still be selected first, since R will always be higher than those of those who have been overdue for some time.
S: Does not take into account how long the card is in the backlog.
D: The same disadvantages as S, but it can also work completely differently in different presets. Not always a high D value is bad (old cards) and not always a low D value (young cards) is good.
I hope Relative overdueness is not going anywhere. Useful sorting for filtered decks if you are doing reviews for future dates.
So, turns out PSG cannot maintain desired retention at the specified level.
I don’t think we should continue this. I will tell Dae to just implement reverse relative overdueness.
P.S. I know sorata will disagree and say that we should try more sort orders. I will not be doing that.
1 Like
I’ve come to realise that it’s necessary for us to look at the distribution of R.
What do you mean?
I think you’re right in that how the cards’ R is distributed matters as much as total_learned. You can have retrieval failures for learned stuff too. But that fail is worse than failing to remember something never learned.
Hey, a bit irrelevant to the discussion but I wanted to point out the missing Sort Orders (e.g. Difficulty Ascending) in Filtered Decks. It would be great to add the new ones there as well
1 Like
I created a tree of filtered decks that collect the easiest or the most retrievable due cards, more from the high-priority decks than from the low-priority ones. Complex, but it’s to use the Random sort order… and similar cards still appear close to each other because they have similar difficulty.
Would apply Retrievability Descending to cards in their learning phase after their introduction be of much use 
I don’t know how their sorting work at this current moment
No, if a card is “red”, it’s R is always 100%
1 Like
Ooohh…so that brings us to the other topic about making R change in real time. This makes more sense now. I suppose R values changing in real time would require a lot of processing power. Is it even doable in the first place, provided that Sherlock find a provisionary model for short-term memory, so that this order could apply to learning cards as well
The forgetting curve in Card Info shows a “real-time” curve, with increments much smaller than one day. The problem is that the scheduling code can only deal with days (whole numbers).
1 Like
Perhaps if we could prove that a code change is worth it for overall learning efficacy, maybe it is worth the effort after all That is if dae agrees, of course.
Do you mean this What is the purpose of this
Good luck convincing Dae
Perhaps if this causes a significant effect during learning, perhaps he may be convinced by it.
But does it really influence learning that much?
That is the question. We dont have a sim. We need a sim.
By the way I think that any improvements in FSRS from now on would be marginal unless something groundbreaking occurs. So I am of the opinion that if there is an improvement that can be made and the resources are available, we should do it.