Is there a way to do reviews such as: “Review by Due Date” then by “Order of Creation”. It appears the closest Native Anki options are “Due Date, then random” and “Due date, then deck”.
For an example of the desired behavior, if I have:
Card #1: Due 12/1 and created 1/1 at 8a
Card #2: Due 12/1 and created 1/1 at 9a
Card #3: Due 12/1 and created 1/1 at 10a
Card #4: Due 12/1 and created 1/2 at 8a
The desired review order would be: #1, #2, #3, #4
However, with both native “Due date, then …” options I get something random such as: #4, #2, #1, #3
I have seen some work arounds on forms making a filtered deck. But I would really value finding a way to just plug and play this approach every morning.
But I think what you’re looking for would be “Order Added.” You’ll usually be studying cards that are due today, so it won’t be every card in sequence, but that should prioritize creation-date order.
[It’s documented for Filtered decks, but it was only recently made available for standard decks.]
@Danika_Dakika. I don’t think “Order Added” would bring the desired behavior when reviews from multiple different days are past due.
For example, assuming today is 12/3.
Card #1: Due 12/2 and created 1/1 Card #2: Due 12/1 and created 1/2
In the case of “Order Added” I believe I would get the order: #1 then #2. This would make sense since this is the order added.
However, this is not the desired behavior. The desired order would be “Review by Due Date” then by “Order Added”. This would have the order: Card #2 then Card #1. Card #2 is due first, even though it was added after #1, and so it should show up first.
A longer example would be (still assuming it is 12/3):
Card #3: Due 12/1 and created 1/5 Card #4: Due 12/1 and created 1/4 Card #5: Due 12/2 and created 1/3 Card #6: Due 12/2 and created 1/1 Card #7: Due 12/3 and created 1/1
The desired order would be: #4, #3, #6, #5, #7.
Due date is prioritized first. And then ties of the same date are broken (or then ordered by) date created or added.
Can I understand how this particular order is useful? To me even many of the current sort orders seem very arbitrary. Is the one suggested now (“due date, then order added”) necessary in some situations?
In the most general use case, one may have several hundred cards due in a day (e.g. 350). And say of those 350, the cards were created across 14 different days (e.g. 25 cards on 14 different days) each day of creation separated by a week or more. And an underlying assumption is that cards from the same date are likely more related than cards made on a different date.
With this example and that assumption, some users may prefer to review due cards in the order most distant from today, which may also be a inelegant way to have more topically related consecutive reviews. It may be more comfortable for users to review 25 related cards (Day #1 of 14), then 25 related cards (Day #2 of 14), … finally 25 related cards (Day #14 of 14) than 1 card (Day #1 of 14), 1 card (Day #3 of 14), 1 card (Day #12 of 14), 1 card (Day #1 of 14), … and so on, until reaching 350 cards for the day.
Yes, I understand that what you were asking for was slightly different, but since what you’re asking for doesn’t exist, I was letting you know what option is available for you.
On the rare occasions when you have overdue cards, I supposed you can use a Filtered deck to pull cards due a certain day, to make sure they will be presented in exactly the order you’re looking for.
But you should feel free to change this over to the “Anki > Suggestions” category, if you don’t want help with it. It seems fair to tell you that this is a pretty niche request, and unlikely to benefit many users, so it’s not likely to be implemented.
I disagree. What I am suggesting is the more general implementation of something that already exists in Anki - “Order Added”. It would not require an additional option but changing the name of a current option. “Due date, then Order Added” would accomplish identically what “Order Added” already accomplishes - which itself was deemed worthy as a standard option. But “Due date, then Order Added” would generalize to more use cases - exemplified above. If “Order Added” was worthy of implementation, it is not clear why a more general implementation should specifically not be implemented. “Due date, then Order Added” would identically accomplish the initial goal of “Order Added”, but would be written for more generalizable use cases.
Additionally, “Order Added” itself can bring about undesirable behavior for users when reviews exist from different days are due.
Since it is implemented, it would make sense to have it generalize to more use cases, no? There is an identified use case where the current implementation brings about undesired behavior. And an identified solution that accomplishes the initial goal of the implementation while generalizing more broadly. And if users were asking for it, then I think it would not be “very niche”, no?
I don’t understand what is undesirable here. In this case, the user will receive an even more connected series of cards. Which is what they are trying to achieve by choosing a similar sorting. And your option will give a more random result.
Sure! I can help. I will try to summarize the above!
The rationale is no different than the reason “Order Added” was added to the standard Anki package (e.g. 24.06.3). Empirically, “Order Added” was deemed worthy for inclusion and implementation as it is in standard Anki. Again, empirically, however, its current implementation fails in the general case when reviews from multiple days are due. A more general solution that would accomplish the initial goal of “Order Added” would be “Due date, Order Added”. This would preserve its current function while expanding its usability to additional use cases. It would not require a new option, but improving upon an existing option that, again, empirically, is already in the standard Anki package (e.g. 24.06.3).
It is written above and again here responding to a similar question. Please let me know if you have any questions and I would love to help!
Since it was already implemented, I did not think it was worth reestablishing its value based on the precedent of its empiric inclusion (e.g. 24.06.3).
It describes what you want, but it doesn’t describe why.
There are so many sorts that it’s time to introduce a custom sorting. Where the user could select the first sort of its direction as well as the second sort and its direction or the absence of the second sort.
Please don’t think that you need to win over any of us to get your idea considered. So there is no need to keep repeating your same arguments over and over.
You seem to be missing the reason that “Order Added” was often requested. [It was extended from Filtered decks to be a standard deck review order not that long ago, and there have been discussions about it in these Forums.] As I recall, it was because of cards that are closely linked – like Cloze or Image Occlusion – that would be benefitted by being studied in order (by their time of creation) within the bounds of a study session.
So, what you’re suggesting isn’t a “more general implementation,” because it would cause a user who wants their cards to be in order to get them out of order instead, based only on the fluke of a due date. It would essentially break the functionality that there is already a justification for.
The only thing you have said to support changing this sort order (or adding an additional sort order) is –
– but as you can see, that doesn’t match up with what has been requested before. It’s fine for you to want a different functionality, but if you have a better justification than that, it would be in your interest to say something about that.
Understood. I was resting on several assumptions that I thought might be shared about the usage of spaced repetition systems. And I thought the initial examples (illustrating specific card numbers, dates of creation, etc.) was enough. But I can certainly be more explicit!
As a first principle, an assumption (potentially intuitive or likely supported by data I could find) is that when using spaced repetition systems, one should prioritize the reviews most likely to be forgotten.
A due date is not a fluke, but the culmination of an algorithm and user inputs that should be prioritized for retention. If this principle is accepted, then “Due date” should be the basis of all review ordering. And if accepted, it should be clear why the “Due date” part of “Due date, then Order Added” should be the primary sort variable.
As a second principle, an assumption about the meta of spaced repetition systems (and Anki) is to integrate into the lives of its users least invasively and minimizing the input time for the maximum retention. In the example I wrote out above with 350 cards created across 14 days, I attempted to illustrate why then reviewing by order may lead to decreased review time by contextual similarity. There is a mental cost of “task switching” (also, I believe, experimentally supported) between concepts that may lead to longer review sessions that are minutes longer. Across the lifetime of many users, this may amount to hundreds of hours of lost productivity. Ultimately though, I don’t think this requires a large argument because the utility of contextual review has been accepted with the implementation of Order Added and for the reasons you mention.
Thus if this principle is accepted, then the value of “Order Added” in “Due date, then Order Added” should be apparent, as I think has already been accepted by its implementation and discussion elsewhere.
Thus if the first principal is accepted as a primary goal, and the value of the second principal is accepted with the value of “Order Added” already acknowledged, the utility of “Due Date then Order Added” should be accepted. This flows from the priority of the two principles above and would further the goals of Anki and spaced repetition systems.
The due date itself is not a fluke for each card, but the set of cards that are going to have the same due date is a fluke. The cards that you want next to each other due to “order added” are going to be completely mixed up randomly via “due date,” which comes first in your suggestion.
Now, I understand what you want, you want all the cards due the same day to be in “order added” sort, but I do think that’s a pretty niche ask like was already said.
You can accomplish something similar by putting the cards you’d want together in the “order added” sort in a sub-deck, then using the “due date, then deck” sort. You won’t get the “order added,” but at least you’ll get something close.
@sorata I could be misunderstanding, but I assumed if you choose “due date, then deck” then it will sort by the sub decks of the deck you select. If there are no sub decks, then it wouldn’t do anything.