I wish readings and meanings were unlinked for reviews.
Example: If I get the reading of a word wrong, I shouldn’t have to review the meaning in addition. Or the other way, if I always get the reading correct, but fail on the meaning, let me review just the meaning.
Now, when it says I have 100 reviews waiting, that is in reality 200 reviews, which makes things twice as laborious and time consuming, as a large portion of these reviews are readings or meanings I always get correct.
Not really a straight solution, but you could consider using Anki-mode, either as a script or on one of the apps. It kind of accomplishes not having to review both.
Whut? You’re learning language here, not data points. Learning how something is written IS also learning what it means. 
I think maybe you misunderstood my post, try reading it again.
I’m saying that if a user always get the meaning of 二日 correct, but sometimes fail on the reading, they should then review just the reading “ふつか”, not force the review of “second day” over and over again.
Honesty, I don’t get it how WK’s current thing of doing teaching isn’t helpful for learning kanji and vocab? I did the journey already, so I’m struggling to see how you cant learn what you want from the current system, or even what you want removed.
I think you forget, that the actual work in memorization, will always be on you.
I’m not sure how to explain this more clearly. Is it wrong to suggest a change in the feedback forum? I haven’t said anything about WK not being helpful or that I can’t learn from it. I just want the user to not get bogged down in doing unnecessary reviews.
If the user always get X correct, but sometimes get Y wrong. Why do they then have to repeat and review X? Basically let the user burn readings and meanings separately.
You can do it, but prepare to be attacked for it and have your learning habits questioned by some people.
I think you might be misinterpreting the original post…
I’ve always done the two together, so I can’t say what it would be like to split them, but it doesn’t seem like it would be an issue necessarily. I personally did all reviews back to back, so it was a nice rhythm of meaning → reading which wouldn’t be possible with this.
The one con I could see for this is just that then 100 reviews would display as 200 reviews. The actual work wouldn’t change (in fact generally speaking you would have less total reviews), but I could see some users getting discouraged from beeg number.
This is an interesting suggestion though, and doesn’t seem like a bad idea, but it definitely is very different from what most services provide (including wk obviously). Suggesting anything different on here is typically met with irrational negativity and dismissal, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
It’s probably better to put reading first, then as you said. No that other way.
An implementation of this is Back-to-Back mode, which is usually a feature of re-order scripts.
If you want to eventually pick-up from listening, or probably thinking and production, reading is a must.
Meaning isn’t so straightforward; and to get started, meaning doesn’t always to be exact. After a while, meaning might need to be more exact than a few English words, and understand the proper use; so immersion to go.
Unless im the one misinterpreting the post, hes not talking about back to back.
hes saying that if he has item X at apprentice 2 and he gets X (meaning) right and X (reading) wrong, then X (meaning) would go up to apprentice 3 and X (reading) would go down to apprentice 1. The meaning and reading would be fully treated as separate cards.
Sadly Wanikani’s ‘community’ is poisoned by a certain degree of toxicity. Some users are against any change and will try to convince that your way of learning is bad just to attack any change, both proposed or already happened. Some notable example include the addition of extra kanjis, the addition of kana only words, the new review screen, the extra study session, the new level up screen…
I think your request makes a lot of sense. If one remembers the meaning of a word (and has already correctly input it many times in a row) there is no point in keeping asking that and only the reading should be reviewed.
That’s exactly what I’m saying 
Regarding the display of number of reviews, I see the point of discouragement by larger numbers, but for me personally, I also get discouraged that the number goes down so slowly while doing reviews, since you really have to do 2 reviews for the counter to subtract 1. If they were treated as separate cards, as you say, I would have less total reviews because many of them I already got correct a 100 times over. I could have 57 readings and 31 meanings waiting, for a total of 88 and that would be ok.
Im personally in the same boat. I think just being able to knock out 100 reviews twice as fast would be very nice from a immediate gratification standpoint.
Not to mention the overall workload would probably drop a noticable amount. And, I personally have a tendency to think of meaning and reading together whenever I see a word. So if they end up getting staggered, it would feel like getting 2x the opportunities to see the word in srs. Overall I think it makes a lot of sense, really, but I honestly had never thought of it before.
It’s absolutely not a solution in the way you’re looking for, but I do something a bit similar with Kanjiroids. It’s a space invaders style game where you type the reading of either kanji or vocab. I set it to ascending level usually. If I remember the reading, great, I just type it. If I forget it, then I lose a life. If I don’t remember the meaning of the item, but I do remember the reading, I let it go to the top anyway so that I can see the right answer. In that way, it’s similar to what you want. I personally don’t see the point of trying to blunt force leeches, but this gives a variety of words and kanji from across levels and I can make sure I do still remember words I burnt a while ago. Even if not all of the words show up, I can rely on statistics that they will show up later in the week. Rather than spending an hour or more daily on WK, it lets me review in about 15-30 minutes and then I can spend the unused time on reading or grammar practice.
As a counterpoint to this suggestion, there have been a lot of times when I lucked into the right reading or a close-enough definition that it slipped by, but got tripped up on the second review. I didn’t really know that kanji, just guessed it or mixed it up with another with a similar meaning or that looked a bit like it (or both - looking at you, 防 and 妨).
Personally, I think that if I don’t know both the meaning and the reading, then I haven’t actually learned it. It takes more time to slog through the reviews, sure, and it can be frustrating at times, but better that than to end up burning stuff you only half know (or worse, have learned incorrectly and will struggle to unlearn later on). It’s not a race. We can keep our reviews from getting too overwhelming by limiting our lessons, rather than by potentially sabotaging our own learning.
Honestly, I see where you’re coming from, and if it were implemented as an opt-in feature that would be one thing, but WK has already shown that they’re very resistant to creating an individualized experience, where we can choose whether we want to do this sort of thing for ourselves. Please don’t give them any more ideas for “features” to force on the rest of us.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.