Hi Olle,
Good question. I think when learning a new character/word/phrase–at least the way my mind works–I need to use it a few times in the first session before it becomes natural. Seeing a new word one time, getting it wrong, and not seeing it again until tomorrow, is not a very reliable way for me to learn. It’s kind of like practicing a new sport; I cannot imagining swinging the baseball bat one time, not swinging well, then waiting until tomorrow to swing it again.
The SRS FAQ published on the legacy site (Skritter | FAQ) gives a good overview of the old algorithm; an initial interval of ~10 minutes with repeat interval factors of .25 to 3.5 seems to match the way learning works for me, compared to what is being described for “new” Skritter of waiting until tomorrow (or waiting for the end of a 30-minute queue) to review something you just got wrong. My sense is that Continuous Mode is actually pretty close to the old algorithm (with the exception of the missing queue counter described previously), since it continuously adds cards you get wrong back into the queue. The learning mode in the new Skritter is not very helpful in this regard, as I don’t find being walked through tracing a character several times is helpful (the idea of immediate drill of something you just drilled seems to me to be a really good example of the ineffective overly short learning intervals you mentioned in your post).
I’m guessing because of the way that you have phrased your question that perhaps you are using different tools/strategies for new words/characters, and maybe you’re just using Skritter for long-term retention. If that works, great, however I am trying to keep the number of tools/strategies for word/character acquisition/retention to a minimum, since learning and reviewing words and characters is only a part of my overall Chinese study plan. (I try to spend a decent time each day reading and listening, in addition to character/word practice.) Legacy Skritter worked perfectly for this, so I find myself wondering what the point is of “fixing” something that didn’t really seem broken in the first place. I don’t think I’m the only one thinking this way; The new app: meeting the needs of long-time users? - #11 by Therebackagain and The new app: meeting the needs of long-time users? - #33 by Therebackagain are two good examples of people expressing the same thing.