In deck options, review limit is called Maximum reviews/day.
If you read the tooltips, it (rightly) says:
The maximum number of review cards to show in a day
This is completely intuitive and would create no confusion only if the next sentence didn’t read like this:
The review limit also affects interday learning cards.
Add to this is what the next tooltip says:
By default, the review limit also applies to new cards
Now, the only thing left if I am not wrong is intraday learning cards. I wonder if it will not be more effective to call this limit Maximum cards/day and add a clarification about intraday learning cards.
The optimal thing to do, however, is adding intraday learning to the fray which makes the feature much more intuitive than it is now. I don’t think any users would complain about intraday learning cards being added to the limit.
I noticed the tooltip for ‘Limits start from top’ says the feature helps studying individual sub-decks while enforcing a total limit on ‘cards/day’. This is not untrue, but ironically there is no limit called ‘cards/day’. Instead, we are calling the closest feature review limit, and adding clarification about it on two different instances.
While it would make wording a bit simpler, I don’t think it makes sense to bury intraday learning cards, as the burying delay is going to dwarf the sub-day delay in many cases.
We also can’t call “review limit” something like “total limit”, as even if we ignore intraday learning cards, the “total limit” may not include new cards.
The wording can be changed and you can then add an clarification about ‘intraday learning cards’. But I still think adding ‘intraday learning’ cards to the limit is a good idea. If I’m not wrong, intraday learning cards are gathered first so for a default-settings-user intraday learning cards will almost never get buried. Instead, it will be the review cards that will get buried, no?
Do you like the idea of changing the name but disagree with adding intraday learning cards to the limit?
First, my suggestion was changing Maximum reviews/day to Maximum cards/day. You can call ‘review limit’ itself ‘card limit’. Second, if you rename New cards ignore review limit to New cards ignore card limit it will be much more intuitive then it is now.
Another issue with ‘maximum cards/day’ is that it makes the user think we’re counting unique cards, instead of repetitions. “Reviews” is at least a little better there, as it can mean both non-new cards, and repetitions.
As of now, does the review limit count cards or repetitions? You’re contradicting what I understood from the manual and tooltips.
The maximum number of review cards to show in a day.
The review limit also affects interday learning cards.
By default, the review limit also applies to new cards.
I understand why some people would want to count repetitions instead of cards but isn’t the latter much more intuitive? In case somebody has increased their (re)learning steps, they can also make appropriate changes to their card limit to account for the increased potential workload. Is counting repetition serving a purpose that counting cards can not?
By default, the review limit also applies to new cards, and no new cards will be shown when the review limit has been reached. If this option is enabled, new cards will be shown regardless of the review limit.
I’m sorry I don’t get what you’re trying to say. I’ve probably read that a hundred times by now.
I think the tooltip is using the word cards but dae says the limit looks at the number of repetitions (probably like what used to happen with card counts).
Sorry, I was misremembering here. We do not currently count multiple entries for a card on one day, because intraday learning cards don’t contribute to the daily counts. If each ‘again’ reduced the count, users could rapidly exhaust their limits when learning new material.
In light of it not being repetitions, I don’t mind ‘maximum cards/day’ in isolation. I’m not sure ‘new cards ignore card limit’ is much clearer than ‘new cards ignore review limit’ though, as it’s a bit less clear now that “card limit” is referring to “maximum cards” and not the new card limit.
I can’t counter the last point you raised. There are certainly two interpretetions of ‘card limit’ when used in that phrase. I don’t have anything better than this.
But I am still in favour of this change. The current wording needs more clarifications than this will need. Also, when a user uses ‘new cards ignore card limit’, it is instantly obvious to him ‘card limit’ is not ‘new card limit’.
That sounds great. Maximum limit is clearer than card limit. For this feature, I suggest we add the word ‘limit’ at the end. New cards ignore maximum limit.
I also agree that some improvement to these labels may be desirable.
That said, all the more because “Maximum cards/day” appears to be a very intuitive, obvious, and inclusive wording, I’m somewhat concerned that the idea of
"intraday learning cards are exceptions for ‘Maximum cards/day’ "
might contrastingly linger as a baffling contradiction for users not only initially but also endlessly, even considering that the explanation about the exception would be mentioned in the guide text in the deck options, and even after the users would understand the rule in their head.
If the “Maximum cards/day” limit would be always ignored by intraday learning cards, and it would be ignored even by new cards when a specific option is enabled, for now I’m supposing that it might be better to be a bit cautious about calling the limit number “Maximum cards/day”.
I agree with you but intraday cards can be added later. If Dae agrees to add intraday learning cards in the very near future, then I don’t mind holding this off for some time. Otherwise, let’s proceed with the changes we have a consensus on.
This is already true for the current description, even after an explanation is provided, even after he understands what review limit does. This change will not completely address that, yes. But it’s upto Dae to include intraday learning cards. I believe this is the first step towards that + it makes the feature a bit less elusive. Net-net a good change.
I agree and sympathize with you in the point that the suggested “Maximum cards/day” looks attractive. If this renaming is realized after some concerns about it are resolved, I will also be glad about that with you.
However, for now I’m worried that these concerns may have yet to be resolved, and guessing that it might be better to take a little more time to assess merits and demerits of each wording, before proceed with the change soon.
If you don’t mind, I would like to mainly focus on the latter case (i.e. the “otherwise” case) for the moment, because I guess the addition in the former case can be an relatively big independent topic.
This focusing is just a loose and temporary policy to be applied only to myself.
I agree that not a few users may feel as you say and that the current labels and its explanation (in the deck options) may have room for improvement, but for now I’d say no to the quoted opinion above.
It is because I suppose that “Maximum reviews/day” represents its actual role in practical sense.
“The review limit also affects interday learning cards.”
It seems eventually understandable and acceptable that interday cards are treated like review cards as a rule in a situation.
“By default, the review limit also applies to new cards”
I think it means "introduced new card count is capped at not only by ‘New cards/day’ (e.g. 20) but also by the number of " ’Maximum review/day’ (200) minus ‘waiting review cards’ (190) " (=10).
(If an user has 30 waiting new cards in the case above, the introduced new cards are capped at 10.)
It may be somewhat baffling, but it doesn’t seem to contradiction to something.
