It’s not one specific item… I can’t get the audio to play (or the play button to appear) for anything.
You have “Hide TTS Audio” enabled. Are you able to turn it off here plz?
I’ll need to make this question type revert to Reading mode.
I’ll add some warnings too to stop the same sort of thing happening in the future.
Welcome to the forums!
Correct. It will keep them at Master+.
This was a conscious decision. You’ll need to manually change the SRS level at the end of the Summary!
Welcome to the forums!
You could potentially use the Sort By – Ascending/Descending SRS Level in the Quiz settings to switch between the different types
This would actually work I believe.
If you have thousands of Master+ items though, the switch will take a while.
Welcome to the forums!
Will add this! Vocab/Grammar split for Minimum Ghost SRS.
Was a bad oversight by me.
Watch this space!
Is there a way to activate Master+ for only some words? I don’t want to click Update All Existing
Not currently!
If that’s ever considered, please make it optional. I’m in love with hearing the full sentence and think it’s insanely helpful for training listening comprehension, even if I miss half of the sentence.
The only way to make it better (for me) would be to display the full sentence blurred out in addition to the audio, so I can roughly see where in the sentence the word I’m tested on is placed 
I love this.
But, I want separate settings for Vocab and Grammar.
I have added this split option now!
Sorry, one more question. What happens when you activate Master + but don’t click Update All Existing?
Any new items that get updated to Mastered will get the Master+ treatment.
All other Mastered items remain the same!
Is there a reason that failed master + cards should not drop SRS level? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something but isn’t the point of SRS testing to drop levels if it’s wrong?
Thanks for all the rapid responses!
I third this. I have the setup where vocab is mastered by completing it in Wanikani, but I’d love to review those words every 6 months.
For Grammar, I’d be able to deal with the 200 reviews, but I have about 6,000 master vocabulary words, which would ruin my life if they all came at once.
Having it come in smaller batches would be very nice.
Even mastered content needs to be reviewed. Thats what it is for.
Your idea is good, but your arguments dont have some minor flaws.
(Not supposed to be an insult, but it definitelly weakens your points.)
Here is some constructive criticism:
Slippery slope
“Start with one config, you end up with a mess of interdependent settings… leading to bugs.”
Claims a small step (one option) will cascade into chaos without showing a causal chain.
Straw man
“Eternal reviews… perpetual dependency…” / “Is ‘mastery’ even needs eternal extension?”
Recasts an optional, opt-in “Master+” as enforced “eternal” reviews, then attacks that caricature.
False dilemma (either/or)
“If the goal is true proficiency, subtraction might be better.”
Frames it as subtract features or lose simplicity, ignoring middle paths (for example, advanced, off-by-default toggles, sane defaults).
Hasty generalization / overgeneralization
“More flexibility… often masks a lack of strong design choices.”
Broad claim about “options” from no data about this option’s usage, design quality, or outcomes.
Faulty analogy
“Sharp knife vs Swiss Army tool that does nothing.”
The product isn’t analogous to physical tools in a way that supports the conclusion; the analogy substitutes for argument.
Appeal to fear / loaded language
“Bloated system that’s harder to evolve,” “diluted core experience,” “tutorial hell.”
Emotionally charged terms used to bias judgment without evidence.
Post hoc / false cause (unsupported causality)
“Add options → mess → untested → bugs.”
Bugs result from process/QA, not intrinsically from the mere presence of a toggle; causation isn’t established.
Begging the question (assuming what’s at issue)
“Options aren’t free. They add cognitive load and technical debt.”
This is the contested premise; it’s asserted, then used as the conclusion’s basis without showing that this option meaningfully increases either.
Anecdotal evidence / argument from personal incredulity
“I’ve used this site for over five years… if I have to ask… how can a new user…?”
Personal difficulty is treated as evidence of general unusability.
Cherry-picking / selective attention
Downplays mitigating facts in the announcement (opt-in, off by default, parked in “Advanced,” explicit caution about side-effects) while emphasizing worst-case outcomes.
Equivocation / ambiguity around “mastery”
Treats the product’s specific “Master”/“Master+” labels as if they must track a philosophical notion of “true proficiency,” then argues from that shifted meaning.
Non sequitur
“Eternal reviews for rare vocab? … risks anchoring people instead of immersion.”
Even if some users keep reviews longer, it doesn’t follow that the system as a whole prevents immersion; optionality breaks the link.
Reading the edit history of this was something!
