+ Don't need to deal with bureaucratic rules/politics like on Wikipedia + I like the easy to use editor + AI editor has early promise
- I don't understand how the leader-board algorithm works - Some bugs - Some parts of the site are confusing
I've been a user of Golden since August 2017 and have contributed towards hundreds of topics.
As someone who's previously TRIED to spend time contributing to Wikipedia, I can say that they really make it hard for a layman user. The editor is confusing and can require you to use "Wikitext" markup language to achieve what you want, I also ran into bureaucracy in the way of random rules and politics, all whilst just trying to be helfpul. I'd spend hours writing a topic on Wikipedia only to have it deleted for some random reason that I didn't fully understand. Golden addresses a lot of these concerns, it's a purely WYSIWYG editing interface with no coding needed; I was also able to submit content without much by way of random rules. That said, I did find the difference between "clusters", "topics" and "categories" to be confusing - I still don't think that I fully get that part.
The AI editor is pretty raw in terms of its functionality, but it's clear to see its early promise - it can pull in content from other websites and format it all for you etc. very cool and saves a huge amoutn of time.
As a user of the site right since its very early inception, I have sometimes come across bugs (e.g. posts getting lost in my drafts folder), but the team has addressed these very fast when I've reached out, many times within a few hours.
I look forward to continue contributing to Golden, I find it very fun in a way that I had wished Wikipedia would be when I first started trying to contribute there.