Good news (if you can call it that) is I still remembered 200. My challenge now how to grind through that list of 410 forgotten. They are a mix of kanji some of which I am very close to being able to recall completely while other I had barely been exposed to before my study absence.

I was trying to just barrel through em but I fear I'll never advance these out of forgotten because once i miss one in review.. seems like it's going to the bottom of the deck again.

What is a technique (that doesn't involve starting over completely) to manage this huge review pile?

Just plow through it. If you don't remember them then re-learn them.
It honestly isn't all that many. Some people typically review that many cards on a daily basis.

I had stopped my RTK deck for about 4-5 month due to other things taking up my time. I came back to about 600 reviews (a lot for me especially since I hadnt done so much Anki in recent times). It took me about 1/2-1 week to plow through them. After the initial going through and figuring out which ones I had completely forgotten I limited myself to no more than 200 cards per day from that deck and was a bit more lenient than usual in order to get my reviews to manageable amounts. But, long story short, pick a point where you will have a large interval of time and just plow through it, as many as you can do before your head hits the keyboard (or whatever you feel comfortable with)

And I say start over. You'll burn through the ones you know really fast, and you'll learn the others better and faster by coming at them in the intended sequence. I say this as one who has started over. Twice.

I'm not a fan of "plow through it" either. Maybe after a month or so, but not after a year. I agree with codex, you'll progress fast to where you once were without any unnecessary burden from the past.

Yeah, just start over. It's gonna go very fast the second time around.

I stopped for a month and had nearly 3000.

Get used to the idea of handling 400 cards a day. In the meantime, since relearning can take more time, just give a day or two concentrated effort. Easier said than done, perhaps, but you have a much smaller hurdle than most people I know who must play catchup.

Don't start over.

ryuudou Wrote:Don't start over.

Consider the source.

Bias doesn't belong in legitimate discussion.

It's not a question of psychology. It's a question of basic practicality.

When you leave a deck alone for a long time, the only significant difference between starting over and just plowing through the reviews is the order in which the cards come up.

If you don't start over, the order is gonna be random. If you do, it's gonna be the Heisig order. There are some very obvious benefits to learning (or re-learning) the Kanji in the correct Heisig order, rather than in a random order.

I'm sure Khatz would agree, if you actually presented him with this specific question. Yes, what he writes there makes some sense (as far as I read, which is the few paragraphs). But it only applies when there aren't more important considerations to take into account. In this case, there are. Yes, you should be polite and patiently hold the door open to a lady, but not if she has a suicide vest on. Then running away is probably the better option. Even though politeness is a good thing.

ryuudou Wrote:Bias doesn't belong in legitimate discussion.

You don't know me well enough to know if my comment reflected my bias or my opinion, and unless your designation here is something other than "Member" you are not the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate discussion.

Forgetting 410 and remembering 200, you're not burning down a library to fix a typo, you're using a systematic process to re-learn those 410 that you forgot, while temporarily increasing the frequency of the cards you do remember.

The intervals for the re-learned cards is the same, but you're either going to be using the system the way it was designed to, in the intuitive fashion it's laid out in, or try to re-learn them all in isolation, defeating half the purpose of RTK :p

Just start over, but go through them quickly and move on ^^

thanks to all who weighed in. It was the random order of the experience when I tried to "burn through em" that made me feel it may not be as efficient.

I'm gonna reset.

codex Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:Bias doesn't belong in legitimate discussion.

You don't know me well enough to know if my comment reflected my bias or my opinion, and unless your designation here is something other than "Member" you are not the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate discussion.

You're backpedaling. Stop.

You'll be fine whether you choose to start over again or plow through your forgotten pile in my opinion. I prefer the latter so that I preserve the review data personally but really, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it.

ryuudou Wrote:Bias doesn't belong in legitimate discussion.

Has there ever existed a legitimate discussion that didn't involve some bias?

My own experience when going through Heisig: I started last year, worked my way up to kanji #1,000 then quit for 8 months.

Then when I decided to finish I spent 2-3 weeks (that's all it took) to review the first 1,000 kanji (I had already made up stories about #508+). I was up to speed again and then finished to 2,042.

Bottom line: because I had already processed the first 1,000 kanji it didn't take long to review them all in order.

It was important for me to review them all in order and re-read all the tips Heisig gives about the various primitives.

Maybe it was simpler for me because I've never bothered with these "deck" things. My main way of reviewing was and is to take RTK1, cover up the kanji, look at the keyword, and write the kanji on paper. Then I slide the card down and do the next one. What I also did was make flashcards on paper that I shuffle and use to test myself randomly.

john555 Wrote:with these "deck" things.

New-fangled-thing-a-ma-bobs

codex Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:Bias doesn't belong in legitimate discussion.

You don't know me well enough to know if my comment reflected my bias or my opinion, and unless your designation here is something other than "Member" you are not the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate discussion.

The mods aren't the arbiters of what constitutes legitimate discussion, the rules of logic are. And you committed the fallacy of ad hominem, by suggesting that we consider the person, instead of his argument.

Your observation doesn't belong in a legitimate discussion. Not because anyone says so, but because it objectively doesn't. We don't need to know you, or be mods, to establish that. It's a fact of reality.

cracky Wrote:

john555 Wrote:with these "deck" things.

New-fangled-thing-a-ma-bobs

Fancy schmancy doohickies.

Stansfield123 Wrote:The mods aren't the arbiters of what constitutes legitimate discussion, the rules of logic are. And you committed the fallacy of ad hominem, by suggesting that we consider the person, instead of his argument.

Your observation doesn't belong in a legitimate discussion. Not because anyone says so, but because it objectively doesn't. We don't need to know you, or be mods, to establish that. It's a fact of reality.

My comment ("Consider the source.") suggested that the OP might consider comparing the generally lucid and incisive advice based on other posters' experience that's found here, with the manic, labyrinthine outpouring of verbiage, hyperbole, and specious argument that was linked. In my opinion, the former is a better source than the latter. If I'm displaying a bias here, it's in favor of clarity and against obfuscation.

Apparently some people read my comment as a global condemnation of the AJATT guy. For the record, I checked him out some years ago (I liked his graphics), shrugged, and moved on. I've never commented on him here and have no reason to do so. There was nothing in my comment that mentioned any person, and it did not include an argumentum ad hominem.

The rules of logic address the logical validity of an argument or an inference. They do not address the legitimacy of discussions. What constitutes a legitimate discussion is decided by the discussion's participants, with a moderator, if present, being the arbiter. Many discussions, such as ones having to do with politics, are rife with bias; many others, such as discussions of conspiracy theories, are illogical but still legitimate to their participants. There was nothing in my comment that violated the norms of this forum.

You're going to great lengths to backpedal this far, and you need to stop. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics you attempt direct blanket bias with no proper basis does not belong in any discussion.

You just admitted that you only checked out AJATT a few years ago and moved on, so under no circumstance here is "consider the source" not either illogical or heavily personally biased. Skimming one article linked here doesn't change this.

can you now please let AJATT out of this discussion?
no matter if you like that site or not, it has nothing to do with the topic at all.
all it does is, it buries the informative bit under a huge pile of crap nobody but the handful of internet warriors at work want to read anyways.

andikaze Wrote:can you now please let AJATT out of this discussion?

Yup. If that's what he wants to talk about, I'm out.