nac_est Wrote:Hey I didn't know that! Does that mean that it's better ーspeaking in terms of projected review timeー to actually mark the cards as failed instead of hard?

Actually, failing a card reduces the rate at which its intervals grows even faster.

Fail: - 0.20
Hard: - 0.10
Good: no change
Easy: + 0.10

I think it's better to just tell Anki the truth, and let it do its job.

Ignore my comment, I just misread woodwojr post. I don't actually mark everything as hard I do my reviews the same way as nukemarine, it's a good way to keep you reviews at a sane level.

As for the original question, if you follow nukemarine's method you shouldn't have a problem with excessive reviews.

Nukemarine Wrote:That graph's shows in part why I changed up my habits. I give myself a set amount of time to study, and not a set amount of material. If there's to much to review in the time you dictated, hold the rest off till the next day. If there's not enough material to review (really true at the beginning with an empty deck), then add more stuff till your time is out.

As mentioned, this solves several problems with workload while introducing the problem of (sometimes) defeating the SRS's estimation of time-to-forgetting.

Not that I recommend against it, but it's something to be aware of when choosing whether to use it or not.

~J

failing also lowers the card's easiness rating.

hard will never schedule a card less than 1.2x its previous interval, so you won't have 55 cards for eternity - they will eventually get longer intervals.

if you want to undo overuse of hard, use 'easy' more liberally and the average ease factor will creep back up.

I see. I didn't know that rating 1 or 2 had such an everlasting effect on the card. I'll be more careful.