update optimal retention and parameters tooltip #3148
Conversation
|
In this case, we'll probably want to 1) move the existing strings to the bottom of the file and 2) add new strings with an updated key (eg deck-config-weights-tooltip -> deck-config-weights-tooltip2). If the keys remain the same, translators won't be notified. |
|
OK. I will update the PR tonight. |
This reverts commit 32fdc5c.
Co-authored-by: user1823 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: user1823 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: user1823 <[email protected]>
|
I think that when the number of reviews is exactly 0 (which most likely implies an error in the search query), an error should be shown. One example of a user entering an incorrect search query and not getting any feedback (if the same query was run in 24.04.2 beta): https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/why-cant-i-optmize-my-fsrs-parameters/43830/3 |
For this case, it's better to warn the user that the query doesn't match any reviews. But I don't know how to add a new warning popup in Anki. @dae, what do you think of? I hope you could help me. |
|
Why don't we push that problem into a separate issue? We could take a similar approach to #3123 and display the item count somewhere, then users would know the search is wrong, without us having to make a separate error. |
| deck-config-compute-optimal-retention-tooltip3 = | ||
| This tool assumes that you’re starting with 0 learned cards, and will attempt to find the desired retention value | ||
| that will lead to the most material learnt, in the least amount of time. To accurately simulate your learning process, | ||
| this feature requires a minimum of 400+ reviews. The calculated number can serve as a reference when deciding what to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How likely is it that this number will change again? We should not be specific if there is a chance it will change again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This number was not changed by me. Here is the discussion: #3019 (comment)
I don't have a plan to modify it in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you happy with it at 400? Sorry, we should have checked with you at the time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
400 is OK to me. And I plan to make the simulation less sensitive to outliers.
Yes, we can definitely move it to a new issue. I just thought that it would be easier to make all related changes at once.
That would depend upon exactly how are you planning to display the count. |
Co-authored-by: Damien Elmes <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Damien Elmes <[email protected]>
|
Looks good, pending that one question above. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This PR doesn't prevent evaluation with less than 400 reviews.
This PR doesn't introduce any limit. |
|
Thanks all! |
L-M-Sherlock
deleted the
update-optimal-retention-and-parameters-tooltip
branch
I removed the words about the 1000 review limitation from the tooltip of FSRS parameters, and mentioned the 400 review limitation in the tooltip of optimal retention.