Bob asked me in a another thread on Anki, my opinion of Gold Lists. I have never used either the Gold List or the Iversen Wordlist methods, but have read many posts here and on HTLAL about them with interest. I thought it might be useful to compare and contrast the methods. But first I would like to throw out for discussion some metrics, both objective and subjective, to compare and contrast them. In no particular order I would propose the following metrics, and hopefully others will chime in, after which perhaps we can then in fact compare/contrast the methods: -initial learning of words and time spent on same -how time is spent long term (i.e. time per word mostly spent up front vs. longer-term in smaller intervals) -practical if not theoretical limits to how many words can be studied per day -format: physical analog vs. digital -long term rates of sticking to methods by users of same (if known or can be estimated) -flexibility: i.e. can method be used by different learners in different ways -learner success stories with each method (attrition rates are probably fairly high for any method) -simplicity & difficulty of methods -scale and context: can example phrases/sentences be used -portability: can be used in many places with either physical/digital media -scientific basis for either overall method or components of them -overall time efficiency I realize that as an Anki fanatic, my own biases are going to surface in such a list of metrics, so hopefully others will comment on metrics here. Also note that all methods are based on the assumption by most users that they are not used in isolation, but are part of an overall learning plan with the vocabulary method supporting course work and other extensive/intensive activities. To be comprehensive, extensive reading should probably also be included in such a comparison, when it is the primary method of vocabulary acquisition after initial courses.