5 ms·
This seems to boil down to "it would be more complicated", mixed with "the trivial thing is a bad idea", both of which seem true. But I can imagine a more comp
by nmca 4y ago
This seems to boil down to "it would be more complicated", mixed with "the trivial thing is a bad idea", both of which seem true.
But I can imagine a more complicated scheme could be much better; done right.
- _Algernon_ 4y agoI agree. It makes sense for cards which link previously learned facts to only show up once the base facts have been learned, for example. But I'm not sure how to design a good UI for it. I can easily see it as resulting in too much friction so nobody uses it.
- s_m_t 4y agoDoesn't just putting the cards in order of concepts essentially accomplish this? When I was doing Anki I adjusted my new card rate so my retention rate stayed above 90%. If you do it this way then your chances of getting stuck in a certain areas of the dependency graph (if you were to model it) is pretty low. If it does end up happening then do some extra study on those concepts outside of SRS. This way you don't have to model the actual dependency graph. You really shouldn't be doing all your study in SRS anyways because so called "flashcard blindness" (i.e. only being able to recall the concepts in the context of your SRS program) is a real thing. Furthermore, in my experience, what really made Anki effective for me was to write my new cards just in time. Meaning no pre-made decks except for something like the primitives of what you are studying (i.e. symbol names, alphabets, extreme base level concepts, etc). When you write your cards just in time you can really connect the context of what you are learning to the concept. From this perspective it really seems strange to build an entire ontology based on dependency graphs of a concept you haven't even learned yet!