Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Suggestion of feature: "Bypass maximum interval" when reviewing #26

Open
hugomarins opened this issue Jun 14, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@hugomarins
Copy link

hugomarins commented Jun 14, 2020

I don't know if it is in the scope desired by @lovac42 for this add-on, but as I couldn't find a way to do this and this add-on is the most powerful for this kind of fine tuning of the scheduling, I'll make this suggestion here.

Maximum interval, though not recommended, can be useful on occasion. I'm applying for getting a position, process in which there will be a major test, of enormous scope, and I don't know when (maybe 2, 3, 5 years from now). I didn't use maximum interval, but as I started getting intervals as long as 3 - 5 years, about very important contents, I feared these intervals be too long, and adjusted a maximum interval of 1.5 years to ensure I will not forget the cards till the date of the test (at the same time, not too short, so as to avoid increasing enormously my working load).

But there are some cards that are too easy, or which are a basis for understanding something else but not part of what will be charged in the test, and as I firmly believe Anki algorithm, I know that for them there would be no problem in using the regular scheduling, bypassing maximum interval.

So, in the same deck, I have a majority of cards to which I would like to avoid extremely long intervals (like 5 years), but also a few cards to which I would prefer the regular scheduling, bypassing the maximum interval.

If you could implement a way of, by just using a shortcut, schedule the specific card being reviewed without considering the maximum interval set in the deck options, that would be terrific!

Thanks anyway!! Your job so far is amazing, and I really and deeply appreciate you sharing it!

@lovac42
Copy link
Owner

lovac42 commented Jun 16, 2020

Those are great ideas. But I'm afraid it'll be difficult to patch these into the existing code. I'll need to look into this once I have the time. I like the idea, just don't want to rush coding this and risking a regression.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants