Talk:Forgetting curve

message: Could we have some meaningful detail here?  'halve' over 'days or weeks'?  It sounds like the explanatory use of the "Factor of 10" Not helpful.
----
I beg to disagree with "not helpful". Most people have no idea what is the true forgetting rate. 50% in days or weeks is roughly true and the best short expression of the rate I can come up with. I added more data to the entry but this verges on theorizing. The best argument against "not helpful" is that, following some not-so-honest mnemonists, people tend to belive that we can learn once and remember for ever. In other words, they belive in forgetting rate of 0. Some reputable scientists also embarked on an effort of proving that true, but the only "zero rate" possible comes from implicit repetition
-----
Well.  In distinction from 0 (zero) I suppose it's helpful.  Otherwise you have to admit it's rather broad.
-----
"Gedaechtnis" should be spelt "Gedachtnis" with an umlaut (two dots) above the 'a'.  I don't know how to to this in Wiki - can anyone help out and make the change?
-----
Dear author I am very interested to know how you define S in your equation! how would you, numerically define the information strenght? or is that open to discussion!
* Yes, I would like to know this as well. I would also like to know where the entire equation came from. I cannot find it in any of Ebbinghaus' writings. It does not seem to agree with his data.
* Is this section dead? There's doesn't appear to be any activity in 2 years. This was posted on 7/13/11.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griswold62 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This graph isn't a very good depiction of the forgetting curve, which is presented in the textbooks as much steeper in the early period and then leveling off fairly fast, not unlike an "L" lying on its side. Also, Ebbinghaus found that the most rapid drop could be measured in hours, not days or weeks, at least in the case of nonsense syllables. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, AND the graph presents multiple forgetting curves, which sort of implies that the forgetting curve itself somehow predicts the change in decay of a memory after review.... something it certainly does NOT predict. I vote to replace the image with one taken from actual data such as Ebbinghaus's own data. Perhaps there's an image we can take from his own work...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.175.67 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I believe this may not be a representative graph of the forgetting curve and rather confusing. The green curves, I believe, are the forgetting curve after reviewing the material with spaced learning. I will look into this and substitute it with a better image. Danieltaocf (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  graph 

message: During a conversation where you are told what to do one time and then the conversation continues about other things.  What is the lokely hood that you will remember the task, or that sttement?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.59.120 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Conversation retention ability question 

message: Section refers to what sounds like someone's recollection of a study or commentary, but doesn't say where from. If I don't get to this, someone else might like into it. WWB (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description section 

message: What are the units for R & S in the forgetting curve formula?
   R = e^(-t/S)
This formula is a variation of the standard exponential half-life decay function
   y = y0 * e^(-(ln(2)/h)t)
where
   S = h/ln(2)
In that formula, h is in the same units as t (time), so I assume that S is also in the same units as t (time).
But what is R?
In the half-life formula, y and y0 are usually mass units. Since there is no R0, I am assuming that it is "1". 
   R = 1 * e^(-t/S)
This means that R goes from 1 to 0, which suggests that it's a probability. Is it the probability of recall?
It would be helpful to have this added to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griswold62 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: This article is incorrect about the Ebbinghaus data fitting an exponential decay function. Ebbinghaus never mentions the R = e^(-t/S) function. In sections 28-30, his data fits a logarithmic function, which Ebbinghaus mentions. It also fits a power function almost as well. I ran his data through a curve fitting program and got a this power function
   R=0.317778t^(-0.1268656)
and this logarithmic function
   R=-0.0455882×ln(t)+0.333966
There is no exponential function that come close to fitting this data.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griswold62 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is wrong -- Ebbinghaus' decay process is logarithmic, not exponential 

message: This Wired article has a lot of good information that should be incorporated into the article. JKeck (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: As Hermann Ebbinghaus being one of the first to carry out a series of rigorous experiments on the shape of forgetting, the history section of the wiki page could be expanded with facts such as why he chose to use meaningless syllables.Danieltaocf (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on history 

message: I suggest that it is worthwhile to add a section about beating the forgetting curve, namely the spaced learning and spacing effect. Danieltaocf (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing effect 

message: Daniel, I think you have a great start with edits to be made in this article. I agree that there is potential for a more effective image to be used to represent the forgetting curve, as it can be an easily understood concept if portrayed as such. I agree that added further information on how Ebbinghaus informed his study of the curve would help you to build out the background of the phenomenon. I think you could also add previous studies that showed application of the forgetting curve that have resulted from Ebbinghaus' findings. Finally, while I do not know necessarily if it is possible to "beat the forgetting curve" but you could potentially link articles to other mnemonics and strategies that help to improve long-term memory. 
Czaharris (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I think you did a great job on additions and rewording to make it flow better. Brynneosh (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review