My suggestion is to display total study duration on the stats board in units of hours.
Currently on the Linux client’s stats, total time studied displays amounts in what I could at best describe as calendar units; once it passes 24 hours it goes into days, (maybe weeks), months. It seems to me unnatural to count absolute durations in units greater than hours. When somebody says that they had worked somewhere ‘for a month’, they don’t mean ‘for 30.5 x 24 hours’ but ‘for ~4 x 5 x 8 hours.’
I wouldn’t necessarily say that a total review of ‘2500 hours’ is more graspable than ‘3 months’, but I’d say it’s more fitting, as well as more exact (how many days are in a month?).
The previous discussion wasn’t able to convince me that it’s a good idea as the talk was mostly about precision which I don’t think is important.
But, it now appears to me that changing the units make comparisons harder. Is it more obvious here that 29d is half of 1.9m? Or, is it more obvious that 2102h is half of 4204h?
OP also says something that I feel is correct:
It’s not something we see very often, at least not me. I see “Your flight is in 48h” not “Your flight is in 2d”. The latter can even sound bizarre.
I’m not sure I follow this as an example. I think the first sounds like an odd thing to say about a flight that is 2d away – while the second sounds completely normal.
No problem! That thread popped into my mind because of the attitude and trouble-making of that particular user. I’m happy to leave that thread behind and see this suggestion getting the more reasonable and measured discussion it deserves!
I’m not sure I follow this as an example. I think the first sounds like an odd thing to say about a flight that is 2d away – while the second sounds completely normal.
I think the stress is on ‘see’. When you talk about your flight to others, you’d say ‘my flight is in two days’, but if there’s an indicator online for a flight, it would more likely say ‘in X hours’. Nevertheless, I think it’s not quite an analogous example, since here it’s about duration and not accumulated time.
(couldn’t figure out how to cite a post, retaining the meta info about the original author)
I would personally prefer not to have the decimal places like that.
I’d prefer something like “4 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes”. That’s what the “4.18 days” actually means, but “4.18 days” isn’t obvious at all for me, unlike the version I just proposed.
I also don’t think showing it as hours only is intuitive either. I mean: I studied 1435.94 hours this month – great but, what does that mean? To me it’s more difficult to grasp then having it converted to “X days, Y hours, Z minutes”.
Maybe it could be made more obvious that that graph is showing full days, (i.e. that 24h means 24h studied in total, accumulated)?
That’s what the “Average for days studied” is for. The “1435 hours” is just a benchmark. It’s a point of reference that people often use in discussions and a motivation to keep going.
The arguments have swayed my opinion - limiting durations to hours does seem reasonable. I suggest you throw up a poll in a new topic, and if you can get the majority of people preferring the new method, someone can implement it.
I opted to raise it here over opening a new thread, as it is rather related.
I’d like to suggest that when displaying stats for the entire history (>1 year), the time axis would use dates (i.e. 27th Feb.-2nd Jun. '24) instead of delta time (i.e. 3,501-3,600 days ago) as it currently does.
I think that when one inspects longingly past achievements or shortcomings, as one does, it’s of greater interest to know when the peaks and valleys happened, rather than ‘how long ago in absolute duration’ it happened.