Talk:SuperMemo

Official SuperMemo website is super-memo.com
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)

Algorithm dispute
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)

Come to my Talk page -- if you haven't already.
Antelan, I responded to your post in my talk page: User Talk:Mat Wilson

--Mat Wilson 2:19AM, 9 February 2007 (GMT Eastern Standard Time))

POV Language
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)

Dear Sir or Madam,

It indeed should be noted that this article did contain some rather POV terms. However, I am fixing all that up. Thank you for pointing this out! :-D

--Mat Wilson 12:10AM, 9 February 2007 (GMT Eastern Standard Time)

I categorized this article as noncompliant because it seems to have several departures from Wikipedia standards. For example, it states, "Proponents of the method claim that it makes possible faster learning and indefinite retention of memories (with repetition)," without reference. It contains POV language such as, "It is advised by veterans and beginners alike." If this article belongs on Wikipedia, it should be cleaned up substantially.

--Antelan 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question Regarding 2006 picture
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).

Added a new category -- Software Implementation
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)

Suggesting to drop the competing software section
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)

Dear sir (Kalimera),

I could not agree with you more. Most of those things are just junk that are completely incompetent and impertinent to SuperMemo. SuperMemo is a complete software package that has been in the works (based off the even older algorithm and years of psychological & neurological research) for over 25 years. Most of these things that were listed on here, were just simple "flash-card" programs and not much more. They can't really "compete" with SuperMemo.

--Mat 1:05AM, 23 February 2007 (GMT -05:00 Eastern Standard)

Actually,

Those two that you left, are a little worthy to SuperMemo. They are based off of memory retention algorithms (I did see a lot previously though that were just flash-cards). They aren't necessarily "competing" software though.. they're free and open-source... (nothing wrong with that, but how can they compete with something that is commericial?).

I'll change the title to: "Related/Similar Software" ;-)

--Mat 1:12AM, 23 February 2007 (GMT -05:00 Eastern Standard)

Hi Matt, I didn't left[*leave] them there, they were already there... anyway, I will try to do some contributions or edits in the future. Cheers, Tomas

-- Tomas

Alright Tom, sounds good! :-) --Mat 1:12AM, 23 February 2007 (GMT -05:00 Eastern Standard)

Link to Piotr Wozniak
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)

Suggestion to merge Incremental reading
I am a new user of SuperMemo and just recently started using it for Incremental reading. While this technique was created by Wozniak and is implemented in SuperMemo, it really does transcend any application that might try to implement it. Unless there are patent rights or intellectual property rights that prohibit the notion of incremental reading being implemented outside of SuperMemo, I do not think these articles should be merged and the merge tag should be removed. Otherwise the technique is indeed coupled with that of the application, and perhaps they should be merged.

Does anyone know if incremental reading has restrictions place on it? (perhaps by Piotr? or the SuperMemo company?) Unhwildcat (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the merge tag because incremental reading is currently, AFAIK, embodied solely in SuperMemo. No one else has implemented it, and I don't believe it has been picked up academically either. Given all that, it seems just like a SuperMemo feature to me - and features belong in their program's article.
 * Likewise, so far as I know there are no software patents or trademarks on "incremental reading" which stop people from cloning it. Given that there are multiple clones of the SuperMemo algorithm, and none of incremental reading, I would guess that people just aren't convinced of its value. --Gwern (contribs) 00:25 26 September 2008 (GMT)


 * I think you might be confusing two things: the SuperMemo algorithm (a spacing algorithm) is used to support the technique of incremental reading. I concede that no academic studies have been done on the technique (it might make for a great PhD study, though) and I also concede that SuperMemo is the only software that provides the tools to accomplish incremental reading.  The even say this on their http://www.supermemo.com/help/read.htm: "Only SuperMemo makes it possible to implement incremental reading."  Yet, despite all this evidence supporting this merge, I can not reconcile in my own evaluation of the matter that a technique is not a "feature" of the software.  In fact, there is nothing in SuperMemo that is specific to the notion of incremental reading.  For example, if there was a button that said "Click me for incremental reading", we wouldn't be having this discussion.  But there isn't.  Perhaps there are other examples of software that provides a unique way of doing something, but isn't considered part of the software?  For example, if MS Excel provides the users with all sorts of ways to compute financial data in new ways that might revolutionize financial analysis, you wouldn't merge the financial analysis and Excel wikis, would you?  (I understand this is a stretch, that there exist other spreadsheet programs, but I hope the point is explained well enough to describe why I think merging isn't quite justified at this point.)  It would be very neat to see empirical data on the benefits of incremental reading though, in the arena of academia. Unhwildcat (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, SuperMemo is the only one which uses the SM-6 algorithm for texts & question review; the rest use something SM-2 AFAIK.
 * But more to the point, I don't think I'm making a bad distinction. SuperMemo has been cloned as far as applying the spacing interval to question/answer pairs, but the feature of show texts on a spacing interval schedule, an interface to slowly whittle texts down into paragraphs and then sentences and then questions - all that constitutes a unified feature for me. As for 'nothing specific' - if there is nothing specific, then why does it have specific elements like buttons for 'Read article', or a Read toolbar, or use of the IE engine or... --Gwern (contribs) 17:09 27 September 2008 (GMT)

I deleted the merge tag from both pages. First, three years old with no sign of consensus. Second, It doesn't seem to me that you need any software at all for incremental reading. A human memory technique and a software program are two radically different things, even if a software programmer invented it. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  03:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/WP:RS problems
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)

External Link Adware
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)

Should we remove "Criticism of newer algorithms"?
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)


 * 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)

pretty dense line in the pseudocode.
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)