Talk:SuperMemo

message: I spotted at least two attempts to change the infobox URL to supermemo.com in the edit history, the most recent one I have just changed back. supermemo.com is in fact an online language-learning platform by SuperMemo World instead of the product SuperMemo for Windows being described on this page.
The official product's URL is super-memo.com. My source for this is at minimum the supermemo.wiki, a community-driven wiki for SuperMemo whose members all acquired the program from super-memo.com. Additionally, Piotr Wozniak's supermemo.guru oftentimes links to SuperMemo's website, alongside some other SuperMemo websites (supermemopedia.com, help.supermemo.org, super-memory.com, etc.).
Please bear this in mind when changing the infobox or other references to the software's website. Kubis (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official SuperMemo website is super-memo.com 

message: Based on https://www.super-memory.com/english/ol/sm2source.htm it seems the efactor is always updated, not just when there is a score of 3 or more. I think the confusion stems from an ambiguous statement in https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/ol/sm2 that says "If the quality response was lower than 3 then start repetitions for the item from the beginning without changing the E-Factor (i.e. use intervals I(1), I(2) etc. as if the item was memorized anew)." I interpreted this to mean that you just restart the interval and repetitions, without setting the efactor back to it's default of 2.5.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmagaram (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algorithm dispute 

message: Dear Sir,
Yes it is the next version of SuperMemo. If you take a look at the title bar, it's currently in beta. I'm sorry but at this momement in time I'm not allowed to disclose any information about it -- I think it was a violation enough that I even posted that picture -- even though I'm sure no one could tell any difference between a picture of that and a picture of SuperMemo 2004 (besides the change of digits from a '4' to a '6').
--Mat 9:50PM, 10 February 2007 (GMT Eastern Standard Time))
----
Hey Antelan,
Yeah, that's probably a good idea. I knew I shouldn't have removed that. What do I know though -- I'm just a 16 year-old geek -- LOL! I read a lot of Wikipedia, but have only made few edits -- this article I thought I would contribute as much as possible because SuperMemo is my favorite software and I talk to Piotr (creator of SuperMemo) quite often. Are you yourself a user of SuperMemo?
Anyway, I'll keep adding and editing and be sure to look at other articles for reference on how a proper one should be done.
Until then... Bye!
--Mat Wilson 12:55AM, 9 February 2007 (GMT Eastern Standard Time))
----
Mat, thanks for your comments and for your help with editing this article. I will help edit this article when I have time early next week. However, for now, I think we should keep the noncompliant notice up until we get further feedback from other editors. It is still my view that the article reads like a product brochure and not an encyclopedic work. Given more time cleaning the article up, adding referenced content, and getting input from other Wikipedians, I think this article could be greatly improved.
--Antelan  05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Language 

message: I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before, but I am an avid user of Supermemo, and I couldn't help but notice the "Supermemo 2006" picture in the entry. Is this a picture of the next version of Supermemo? Just curious.
LittleFish (email: [E-mail removed -- Question was responded to asker by Mat Wilson through e-mail.]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.191.163 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Regarding 2006 picture 

message: I added a new category on "Software Implemenation".
This is really lookin' terrific guys! Great work & Bravo!
Cheers! :-)
--Mat Wilson 07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a new category -- Software Implementation 

message: I'm suggesting to drop the competing software section. Not that the two ones that are listed now I don't see as competing that much to Supermemo, there are also virtually hundreds of such programs anyway. Above that section, there is See also section, that allready contains links to the other pages on Wikipedia where IMHO all those flashcards software belong, better than on SM page.
Kalimera 17:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting to drop the competing software section 

message: I subjectively believe that the 'Piotr Wozniak' linked to in this article, may not be the same person who created 'SuperMemo'.
Norway Boy (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Piotr Wozniak 

message: There's far too much here that's either unsourced or sourced to the software vendor itself. WP:RS requires citing independent, reliable sources. Wozniak's MS thesis is at least a technical publication, but it's not independent nor (except perhaps in the loosest sense) peer reviewed. If the Supermemo algorithms have been assessed in some peer-reviewed educational technology article, that would count for something. Yakushima (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPOV]]/[[WP:RS]] problems 

message: I downloaded and ran the supermemo from the external link, freewarefiles.com, and instead of installing supermemo is seems to have installed some stupid freewarefiles advertisement software instead. Took me a while to remove it all. I recommend finding another source for these files.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D9:9F0:7800:ACF7:42D0:BD69 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Adware 

message: The only cited source of criticism was the Anki author, but the Anki FAQ no longer claims that SM-5 (or any later algorithm) are flawed and concedes that it may have been a flaw in their implementation. Given this controversy no longer exists, does it make sense to keep the section (and update it to state that that the controversy has been settled or should we just remove the section since it has no bearing on the description of SuperMemo any more? In my view we should remove it but I don't know enough about Wikipedia etiquette. Cyphar (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the section (nobody has responded in a week). If someone else decides to revert it, we can have a chat here about it. Cyphar (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we remove "Criticism of newer algorithms"? 

message: The following line is really quite dense and I'm finding it difficult to wrap my simple mind around it:
EF ← EF + (0.1 − (5 − q) × (0.08 + (5 − q) × 0.02))
I'd like some other editors input on whether it warrants an explanation, maybe in the form of a graph of EF for each iteration of this line? Or perhaps this sort of information is a bit too technical for Wikipedia, and wouldn't be of interest to the majority of readers? Not sure!
Camholl (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  pretty dense line in the pseudocode.