Let us enter numbers


#21

But… you keep saying ‘no reason not to be included’ despite the fact that people are pointing out a clear reason not to include it. Are you saying that they should work around the technical limitations?


#22

I quite like this idea. I’m on the early levels and sometimes fully half my daily reviews are counting days, machines and things. It can be a bit annoying that WK doesn’t accept numbers directly. Of course it’s no kind of deal breaker but it would be a nice quality of life improvement, and might help reduce friction slightly for people starting out. Would it not be possible to exclude any numeric parts of the answer from the fuzzy matching algorithm that’s being used, so they have to be correct? Or, as a compromise, if a user’s answer includes a numeric character drop back to using no fuzzy matching whatsoever?


#23

The first suggestion seems much more likely. As it’s not functionality that users can see, I can imagine that somebody used to small typos getting through would be pretty enraged if suddenly ‘3 mahcines’ was marked wrong.

This would still require a reasonable amount of work for only a small payoff though (there aren’t many number words further on, power through!), so I can’t see it being a priority. A nice idea though.


#24

“Floor 42” (typed this way) is accepted as correct answer for the vocab word 四十二階 :blush:
Personally I don’t mind the extra one second or couple of seconds I need to actually type the numbers. I don’t think it makes a big difference in my kanji learning process…


#25

The numbered kanji are the easiest to remember. I’m not going to have that problem.


#26

I literally said that, yes.


#27

All the first 500 kanji were easy to remember for me, because I already knew them before I joined. WK shouldn’t bother checking any answers for those because I don’t need them to.


#28

oh right, he had a nice idea. Way to be show him your full support while being a prick to me for saying the exact same thing.


#29

Yeah because that’s totally a reasonable comparison. Haha you really got me


#30

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear, given that in your next comment you suggested you’d be fine with incorrect answers being marked right. I therefore wasn’t certain whether you thought they should implement it regardless of the technical problems, despite the ‘reason not to include it’, or whether you were suggesting they should implement something that would work around the technical limitations.


#31

@Leebo I’m sorry but you’re a complete asshole on virtually every discussion I’ve seen you on. I’m not the only one to notice this either.


#32

What’s the difference, you’re basing it on how easy it is for you personally to remember.


#33

I’m being a prick for asking for clarification on what your comment meant?


#34

I wouldn’t be fine with that, but it would be better than not allowing numbers at all. Maybe you should have read everything I said without assuming my point of view.


#36

I repeat.


#37

There’s only one person here calling people names.


#38

We’ll do it once we implement a black list for the reasons some folks listed. But, gotta do that first.


#39

okay just ignore what I just said then.


#40

Black list?


#41

I’m sorry? I’m only calling names because I see people being disrespectful. Just because I use language doesn’t mean I’m the one who started it.