Well, when I started reading I probably only knew about 60-70% of the words I saw 
I wrote about this in detail elsewhere but suffice it to say I made very rapid progress by skipping literally everything I didnāt understand ā most of the time not even looking up words unless I was totally lost, all in pursuit of increasing the chances of encountering grammar or vocabulary that I had recently studied. Iām not going to pretend itās for everyone, but it worked for me and I was certainly reading well above my level for the first few months. Fortunately mass exposure works by magic so it turned out alright in the end.
Just not sure I can get on board with this one. A friend of mine has been on Duolingo for almost three years (ever since they first added Japanese support) and heās still functionally illiterate. Why? Duolingo is fun; itās got that whole gamification thing and my friend is consistently at the top of the daily leaderboard. Duolingo is also easy; the total vocabulary across the whole course is super limited and the quizzes are almost all multiple-choice. Somehow, this friend of mine is still functionally illiterate.
Obviously, itās a silly comparison. Everyone (hopefully) knows that Duolingo for Japanese is bad. The Japanese-learning community Iām part of constantly has people coming in asking what the difference between ćć ć and ććć is, and nearly every time itās because Duolingo doesnāt properly teach combination kanaā¦and thatās just one easy example.
The point is that on the gradient of Easy/Fun vs Difficult/Boring, thereās a huge range of possibilities besides āmake it as easy as possibleā. Max difficulty+max boring? yeah people are probably going to drop out. That doesnāt mean that going all the way to the other end of the spectrum is the best answer.
Quick edit to add something I forgot earlier (regarding ānative material by native speakersā):
It seems almost disingenuous to say āwe have a native Japanese translator on the teamā when the output has so evidently been altered in a way that no normal person would speak. It makes me think of books like āFun with Dick and Janeā, which are full of phrases that, while grammatically valid (āLookā, said Dick āSee it go. See it go upā) donāt in any way reflect actual language.
Iām not sure if I feel better or worse about the ććć»ćć consolidation now that I know it was a conscious decision. Maybe better, because at least it demonstrates that it wasnāt done out of ignorance ā you at least know the difference between the two. But maybe worse, because you willfully made a choice to contradict the information in the guide, which I feel like I personally would be even more confused by (āif ćć means āthat over thereā, then how far away is āover thereā? is it for things that you arenāt holding directly in your hand?ā)
I dunno. Itās very frustrating. Iāve probably spent more time than was prudent on this topic.