{number1} cards will be due sooner. {number2} cards will be due later.
or
{number1} intervals became shorter. {number2} intervals became longer.
When “Evaluate” shows the metrics, make it like this: “Log loss: 0.5000 → 0.4950, RMSE: 4.5% → 4.3%”. That way users won’t have to write down/memorize the numbers.
Use a more recent date, like 2006 (Anki release year), as the default in “Ignore cards reviewed before”. Also make the default date in the box faded, just like the default parameters.
Rename “Retrievability descending" and “Retrievability ascending” to “Least overdue first” and “Most overdue first”. Alternatively, “Least forgotten” and “Most forgotten”.
Add a pop-up to regularly notify the users to tell them to optimize parameters. This isn’t high prority right now, but it will be once FSRS becomes the default, since most users will have no idea that they need to optimize parameters. This is kind of like a crappy alternative to automatic optimization.
Is that going to lead to some bug reports about “my RMSE went up after optimising”?
I’d instead like log loss to be removed from here because 1. It’s not easy to explain and 2. It’ll be less stressful for non-math people to look at the stats.
Is that going to lead to some bug reports about “my RMSE went up after optimising”?
No.
EDIT: nvm, it can. If RMSE with old parameters is worse than last time AND RMSE with new parameters is also worse, yes, that would result in users seeing worse RMSE
#5 How about the following (got them from ChatGPT): “Most/Least delayed first”.
If we want something closer in meaning to the current one, “Most/Least forgotten first”.
Some other suggestions from ChatGPT were, most /least decayed first, most/least at risk (high R cards are most at risk of being forgotten), longest/shortest overdue, oldest/newest due first. (That’s 1% cream from 99% really bad ideas).
I agree but then we also have the same problem again: with different desired retention set in the subdecks you might see a mixup of most/least forgotten.
“Retrievability ascending/descending” is accurate to how cards are sorted. To give an example of an issue by calling it “most/least overdue”: if a new card is at overdue 1 days, it might be at 80% retrievability, whereas a mature card that is more overdue at 3 days might have a retrievability of 90%. IIRC, there is already a “due date, then deck” option. Besides, I think that name is pretty understandable already and doesn’t need to be changed.
January 1, 1970 is the epoch of Unix time, which is used to measure review dates in the revlogs for cards. I think it looks cleaner than October 5, 2006 and wouldn’t confuse any new users. From a programming perspective, having the oldest date signals that the feature is essentially off. Setting the default date to Anki’s initial release date obviously wouldn’t affect any users, but it is purely cosmetic, unlike the idea of greying out the default date, which I do like and has functionality.
I do agree that greying out the default date is more important.
Besides, I think that name is pretty understandable already and doesn’t need to be changed.
Really? Forget about being a power user, think like someone who just installed Anki 5 minutes ago and FSRS is enabled by default. “Retrievability descending” is understandable? Really, actually?
Chances are, a new user probably has never even heard the word “retrievability”.
It’s actually dependant on how much R has decreased over time meaning of you have different DR set in subdecks the name of the sort order gets confusing. And also, Expertium’s point. Most people probably wouldn’t instantly know the word (maybe native speakers?).
I hadn’t thought about scrolling from the default date, I usually just type it in (and then, I’ve only touched it twice).
Adding more explanations to the options for the sort order would be definitely better in reducing confusion for new users if they immediately dive into FSRS. (I see that as a better solution than just changing the name.) I also think that new a user would have played around Anki enough to understand that retrievability ascending means the “probability of remembering goes up” before they care to change that setting. I was using the default sort order setting for more than half my time using Anki, which worked fine, but I do agree that improving understandability is important for letting users unlock more faster.
I have the same issue with “most/least overdue first” as @sidereal noted – it’s not accurate, because we measure “overdue” in days and “retrievability” in percentage points. Same with “most/least delayed first.”
Similarly, “most/least forgotten first” is problematic because we usually measure “forget” as a binary (did or didn’t) and count it discretely, not on a continuous scale. It strongly implies it’s talking about the number of times you’ve forgotten the card (i.e. the number of lapses).
Maybe – but “never heard” is not the same as impossible/difficult to understand. “Retrieve” is a normal verb and “-ability” is a normal noun-maker. The app is for memorizing things. We “retrieve” things from our memory when we remember them. So it must mean the ability to be retrieved from my memory, or the likelihood that I’ll be able to retrieve it from my memory.
It’s tough to come up with a simpler name because Retrievability is a complicated concept – and harder still because it is already named accurately. I don’t think the name should change**, but if it does, it should be to something equally accurate – “most/least likely to be remembered first” fits the bill (but it’s definitely too long).
** An unforgivable digression from the topic: I also don’t think that Retrievability descending should become the default sort because (1) it’s a complicated concept to lead with, (2) it only pays dividends for users who both have a backlog AND are willing to surrender a certain portion of that backlog for the sake of making forward progress on certain other cards – an important caveat that has not been effectively reaching most folks, and (3) it allows young cards with very low Stability to slip behind the backlog. Now that I’ve remembered how cranky I am about that, I should find a better place to talk about it. But it still stands – If it’s not the default, renaming it becomes less productive.
Oh, wonderful, so the current name isn’t accurate either! Maybe we shouldn’t expend much effort trying to rename it until someone can explain what is actually being sorted, and if it results in anything different than ascending/descending retrievability.
It makes me think that maybe the solution is to redesign that setting entirely.
For example:
Have few radio buttons for the most recommended options with descriptions explaining the effect of choosing that option:
Review Sort Order
See cards closest to their desired retention first
If you do not finish your backlog you will probably maintain your desired retention for the cards you review, but are much more likely to forget the cards you did not review.
See cards furthest from their desired retention first
If you do not finish your backlog you will probably drop below your desired retention, but you are much less likely to entirely forget cards that you did not review.
Advanced [the current dropdown]
Edit:
Or maybe even simpler so people don’t have to know about desired retention etc.:
I want to make sure I remember the cards I do review.
I don’t mind that I am much more likely to forget the cards I don’t manage to review if I do not do all my reviews every day.
I want to try to review all cards before I forget them.
I don’t mind that I am more likely to forget all cards if I do not do all my reviews every day.
Maybe we shouldn’t expend much effort trying to rename it until someone can explain what is actually being sorted, and if it results in anything different than ascending/descending retrievability.