Maybe the precision should depend on the value? For example, 5.94 minutes doesn’t provide any additional meaningful information when compared to 6 minutes. But, the difference between 1.5 hours and 2 hours is more significant.
I came here to report the same issue. IMHO this detailed information is just a distraction. How does “186 cards in 11.2 minutes today” and “8.4h good” help? I don’t think it makes a difference if I studied 11 minutes or 11.2 minutes - just round to the nearest minute. Same with 8.4h? Why would I care if I see the card in 8 or 9 hours?
This level of detail is just distracting.
If users have asked for more detail, I think it would be worthwhile to understand where they want more detail exactly. I doubt anyone needs to know they studies for 11.2 minutes instead of 11 minutes.
@dae I do not support the suggestion. While this precision may not help you, seeing the .42 in a 7.42 or a .62 in a 5.62 s per card is a massive difference if you have a crap ton of cards. It is a humongous difference.
You might want to check your math on that. It’s at most +/- 8.3m per 1000 cards. It doesn’t seem like a humongous difference, especially for something that is merely a record of past activity.
Except it is not only a thousand cards : )
Although I am not the best in math (I AM sure you are), I am also pretty sure I have a good idea of what I am talking about.
For people with a much smaller collection, it may not make sense, but it will if you have tens of thousands of cards where smaller differences become sizeable. I have clearly stated that in my previous comment.
Which brings me to my point as to why it is not merely a record of past activity as you suggest. Some of us take performance very seriously, like very seriously. I see no reason whatsoever to do away with some decimal points for readability.
Keep in mind we are talking in Anki hours, which takes a lot more time in real life than what it suggests. So the small difference does matter, heck at least to some.
I suggest leaving it as it is or at most have the opiion to toggle the display according to the wishes of the user.
My opinion is that I don’t see what is to be gained by removing the decimals, so I would prefer to leave the current behavior alone. Giving more information than some people desire is better than giving less than others want, because that way the people who want more precision still get the info they wanted, and the folks who are satisfied with less precision can still get the information they wanted.
This change is even worse than I thought. I did a long session of Anki today and it tells me I’ve studied for 1.22 hours. No human I know (and I know many programmers), think of hours in terms of 0.22 hours. This should be “1h 13m” or “73m”. (Assuming 1.22 means 1.22 hours and not 1hour and 22minutes.)
Maybe this is a different issue because I’m not arguing the precision should be reduced (just presented in a more human way). I’m pretty sure Anki showed “1h 13m” in the past.
@DerIshmaelite@garrettm30 do you really find it useful to know that you studied for 12.2 minutes instead of 12 minutes? Or that a card will show up in 8.4 rather than 8 or 9 hours. If yes, can you explain how that helps you? I find it massively distracting. All of this is information we have to process while learning and I’d rather focus on what I’m learning than whether the card will show up again in 8 or 8.4 hours.
I can see some arguments about the seconds per card (although I’m personally with @ Danika_Dakika on this) but for the total time studied (just round to minutes) and when a card will show up (just show an integer value, whether that’s minutes, hours or days; ok for years more precision makes sense), I can’t even come up with a good argument as to why people would want to know this.
All of this detail is information we have to process and which distracts from the learning.
I dont see at all how it is distracting. As @garrettm30 suggested, better have it and not need it than need it and not have it. This is a problem created out of nothing.
As for the 12.2 minutes thing, it is not the same as 8 and 8.4 hours, now is it. I already wrote out my argument to Danika saying that Anki time is not really the same as real time so small differences do matter especially wtith larger collections and greater demands from Anki, and I am not expecting to change any of your minds soon regarding this issue (less so if you have a relatively small colleciton since you wouldnt have an idea of it is lke).
All I am saying is, this is a change that will not be welcomed by users like me or Garett. If you want to push for a check-box toggle to adjust the accuracy by which the numbers are displayed, I have no objections. But the issue is completely gratuitous und uncalled for.
Sorry, I thought your explanation referred to 36.63s/cards (while I don’t agree, I can see your point) and not to “studied in 12.2 minutes”.
Do you really care about the 0.2 minutes? I don’t see how your argument about big decks applies here because this is what you studied per DAY. 0.2 minutes is about an hour per year. If we round up/down to the nearest minute, that’s a max 3 hours per year in rounding: 0.5 * 365 / 60. And that’s the worst case scenario because sometimes we’ll round up and sometimes down, so it might even out anyway).
“But the issue is completely gratuitous und uncalled for.” If anything, I think your hyperbole is uncalled for. Information overload is a real thing, especially when you’re trying to learn. (Also, Anki already has an (imho unfounded) reputation of being geeky and I think this excessive precision will just play into that.)
Oh, I misunderstood this because 12.2 minutes and 8.4 hours were presented in different scenarios (12.2 minutes was presented for “time studied” whereas the 8.4 hours was presented in the context of “card shown again in”. I know the title of this post only refers to “time studied today”, but precision is also a problem for the time info on when the card is shown again (hard, easy). I think this is where some confusion came from, sorry).
I think we all agree that the total study time should of course include minutes (and expressed as minutes and not a fraction of hours).
But can you elaborate what you want to see for the “card shown again” thing. Currently it can say 8.4h (I’m pretty sure I saw that) and I think 8h is enough precision. Do you agree or disagree with this?
I think there’s less disagreement than we think (?).
