Is it really a necessary change? As you have noted in the thread, the True Retention Table is already documented in the Anki Manual, and the term "True Retention" itself inherently suggests it represents actual/real retention metrics, in contrast to the "Desired Retention". I believe adjusting the graph order (#3873) would sufficiently address the core concern about clarity without introducing redundant explanations (which would also require translators’ work for this string).

Team: "Clear UI" and "Read the Documentation"

Is it really a necessary change? As you have noted in the thread, the True Retention Table is already documented in the Anki Manual, and the term "True Retention" itself inherently suggests it represents actual/real retention metrics, in contrast to the "Desired Retention".

I do agree. But it's difficult for me to know what a "normal" user would or wouldn't do, and apparently "normal" users struggle with basic research. Also: "True Retention" might not be as obvious for users without a background in psychology / spaced repetition, or for those that never read the manual ect.

Maybe @Expertium could help shed light? Would just switching the order of the graphs be enough?

As far as I know, only one user has expressed uncertainty about how to check their True Retention: https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/let-s-remove-the-answer-buttons-chart-from-stats/56170/23
Again, simply directing them to the relevant documentation paragraph would have been sufficient.

To put it briefly: very low value, but a significant impact on the UI.

only one user has expressed uncertainty about how to check their True Retention:

Well, guess it's time for another survey. I'll make it tomorrow

Well, guess it's time for another survey. I'll make it tomorrow

I don't think that these surveys are representing reality: they are testing only the small Anki community on reddit.

The thing is that people who don't have problems understanding Anki just don't read the Anki reddit or any community network (including Anki forum).

So, basically, every survey on "Help Me"-style social network will be biased.

they are testing only the small Anki community on reddit.

Yes, the participants are people from r/Anki: a subreddit for Anki enthusiasts, for people who care about Anki enough to comment and post. Which means an average r/Anki regular is more familiar with Anki than a completely randomly selected Anki user. Which means that a randomly selected Anki user is more likely, not less likely to struggle with Anki. If r/Anki regulars struggle, it's a safe bet that people who aren't Anki enthusiasts struggle even more.

If r/Anki users struggle, it's a safe bet that people who aren't Anki enthusiasts struggle even more.

In my opinion *(or rather from my observations), 90% of users on the r/Anki are people how don't want to read the docs and just want to get answer without any effort, prove me wrong.

Alright, I posted it on r/Anki and in the Anki Discord server. Link to the summary of results: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pvIxywJDzZ_-DddyYg9eA0TiVMW749MsrfK_F_2NuMA/viewanalytics

@GithubAnon0000 can you make a hint that shows the text when you click on the question mark?
Like this:

Another good suggestion from jake: https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/let-s-remove-the-answer-buttons-chart-from-stats/56170/46?u=expertium

Remove the % from the "Answer Button" chart, like this

Please, don't remove anything.
Also, judging by the poll results I don't think that anything should be changed: rearranging the order (#3873) is sufficient.

Which means that a randomly selected Anki user is more likely, not less likely to struggle with Anki. If r/Anki regulars struggle, it's a safe bet that people who aren't Anki enthusiasts struggle even more.

I've mentioned before that I don't think these are well-placed assumptions. You can't assume that a randomly selected user understands less -- it's just as likely they understand more, and they aren't showing up in these help-venues because they don't have any problem understanding. Plus, there are plenty of "enthusiasts" who read about Anki every day and still don't understand it very well (and give poor advice because of it).

I appreciate the idea of this change, but it still seems unnecessary to me. Part of the value of the Stats page is how much it is focused on images, not words -- on presenting the data, not interpreting it. We've had Answer Buttons as the "check your retention" spot for many, many years without needing to import text like that from the manual. I think the True Retention table can stand on its own too.

I also think the text that is already there --

-- is enough to explain-away any calculation differences between TR and Answer Buttons.

[As an aside on the text of the PR:
Saying that your DR "should be close to your TR" is backwards, right? DR is fixed, so it would be the other way around. Unless the message is that you should set your DR to match your TR?

But perhaps more importantly:
Saying that your retention "should be" anything is going to lead to "why isn't my retention doing that?" questions, even more than we already get. 🤦🏽 I know @Expertium is tired of answering those them because they are now summarily dismissed with a flow-chart. I don't think those of us who are still responding to those questions can handle an uptick!]

It seems like a significant portion of users get confused, so we should address that.

"Don't change anything" is the most popular one. Though it's worth mentioning that people seem to be much more in favor of removing Answer Buttons than True Retention.

Text isn't welcomed, but perhaps we could turn it into a hint, if it's technically feasible.

Last time I checked the results they were different:
"Do you think adding this text is a good change" was 50% for No.

The proportion of "No" to "Yes" for confusion about TR and Answer buttons graphs was 70% and 30%. Also, if I remember correctly, there were not 1 votes options for the "Which of the following options..."

Text isn't welcomed, but perhaps we could turn it into a hint, if it's technically feasible.

According to the new results, it's quite even:

@GithubAnon0000 can you make a hint that shows the text when you click on the question mark?
Like this:

I can surely try. You should know, though, that my coding skills aren't the best in the world – so I might not be able to implement this. I'll try though and let you know.

There a huge but though: People already fail to read that info in the deck option (e.g. where you set your DR). Do you really think this is going to do any good? I must say I doubt it.

Another good suggestion from jake: https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/let-s-remove-the-answer-buttons-chart-from-stats/56170/46?u=expertium

Remove the % from the "Answer Button" chart, like this

I don't think this is really justifiable considering ~69% of people voted for "do not change anything".

[As an aside on the text of the PR:
Saying that your DR "should be close to your TR" is backwards, right? DR is fixed, so it would be the other way around. Unless the message is that you should set your DR to match your TR?

I agree, it is backwards. I didn't notice because I just took the text from the manual. I'll change it here and in the manual.

There a huge but though: People already fail to read that info in the deck option (e.g. where you set your DR). Do you really think this is going to do any good? I must say I doubt it.

It's better than nothing, at least.

Results were falsificated!

...you have to be kidding me

No you! Why you didn't stop the poll after you posted the results???

Why? We don't have to close the survey or make a decision right now. We can keep looking at results as more and more people participate.

It's wrong to continue survey after you post the results!

Again - why? That's like saying "refreshing the page is wrong"

BIAS. Some participants have already seen the results before starting the survey.

It's wrong to continue survey after you post the results!

It's true that results shouldn't be puplically viewable, if this was a scienctifically done study.

I'd like to point out, however, that results could have been viewed since the very first participant. It even shows a "view the results" button at the end of the survey.

But is it really likely that this is going to be a confounding variable here? Maybe we should take the poll with a grain of salt and just look at tendencies instead.

BIAS. Some participants have already seen the results before starting the survey.

Participants can view the summary only after submitting their response. Unless you mean that they saw it here, on Github. But I doubt that anyone other than the three of us and Danika are looking here.

Participants can view the summary only after submitting their response. Unless you mean that they saw it here, on Github.

THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE AGAIN AFTER FINISHING THE SURVEY.
I am talking about people who saw you post with results and started the survey after seeing the results

Alright, I think this should solve the failing tests.

I'm not sure what on:mount did but the modal works fine without it. Also: do I have to do one of those things from the picture?

I'm not sure what on:mount did but the modal works fine without it

It's for when multiple subheadings open the same modal, e.g in deck options. Not necessary right now, but I recommend you add it back to keep things consistent with everywhere else HelpModal is currently used

It's for when multiple subheadings open the same modal, e.g in deck options. Not necessary right now, but I recommend you add it back to keep things consistent with everywhere else HelpModal is currently used

Comming back to this (I cannot believe an entire month already passed): The checks won't pass if I add it back because if I add it back, then the eslint throws an error (unused code). I could solve this if I could figure out how to make the title clickable.

I attempted quite a few options and none really worked. If you look at my last commit and build it, you can see that the message

JS error /_app/immutable/chunks/Yg4-Draq.mjs:1 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'show')

gets printed whenever I try to open the stats (and the graphs won't show up). Does someone here know how to generally add clickable text or can even help a bit?

Another thing: I cannot ./check on my system anymore for some reason. I get a lof of

Finished release profile [optimized] target(s) in 0.12s
failed: check:minilints
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/bin/activate_this.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/decorator.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/runner.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/wasyncore.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/init.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/parser.py"
[more "missing standard copyright header"]

Did I mess something up?

Thanks @Luc-Mcgrady, this works flawlessly!

I'm still getting messages like

Finished release profile [optimized] target(s) in 0.12s
failed: check:minilints
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/bin/activate_this.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/decorator.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/runner.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/wasyncore.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/init.py"
missing standard copyright header: "./.venv/lib/python3.13/site-packages/waitress/parser.py"
[more "missing standard copyright header"]

if I run ./check – but the tests pass in github, so I guess something is wrong in my machine.

Looks good - thank you! Regarding your issues with ./check, removing the .venv folder you've placed there should fix it.

Regarding your issues with ./check, removing the .venv folder you've placed there should fix it.

Not sure how it got there since I didn't create it manually. It also seems to exist since 22. Feb. 2025 – but I didn't have this issue with ./check for that long.

I did remove it now and that indeed solved the issue. Thank you!

Probably created with a tool like uv.