I know this is a nitpick, and outside of the EA community no one would probably complain, but I do feel a bit uncomfortable with the following:
“To raise money for AMF, rated the world’s most effective charity by GiveWell.”
Though it is GiveWell’s top rated charity, it has not been chosen so because of it’s overall value as an organization, but because of it’s cost-effectiveness compared to other marginal donations. If I remember correctly, the Gates Foundation’s vaccination program is both more effective, and more cost-effective, but currently does not have additional room for funding.
“rated the world’s most cost-effective charity” seems better, though I think the statement “rated as best charity to donate to, by GiveWell” strikes me as most true, or just simply “GiveWell’s top recommended charity”.
I completely understand where you’re coming from Habryka, but as this proposal is for a very mixed audience, I decided not to use that kind of language as I believe it would distract from the primary message. Your last two suggestions look like they have merit, though they’re still not quite saying what I want to convey. I’ll take them into consideration.
For the most part, I wanted to make it clear that GiveWell isn’t some other meta charity claiming some charity is ‘the best’ for the sake of it. For example, in Australia we have an organisation that puts out their ‘charity of the month’ which really means nothing.
There are extra benefits from replacing “most effective” with “most cost-effective”—you help nudge the audience towards thinking of cost-effectiveness as an important metric for charities.
I know this is a nitpick, and outside of the EA community no one would probably complain, but I do feel a bit uncomfortable with the following:
“To raise money for AMF, rated the world’s most effective charity by GiveWell.”
Though it is GiveWell’s top rated charity, it has not been chosen so because of it’s overall value as an organization, but because of it’s cost-effectiveness compared to other marginal donations. If I remember correctly, the Gates Foundation’s vaccination program is both more effective, and more cost-effective, but currently does not have additional room for funding.
“rated the world’s most cost-effective charity” seems better, though I think the statement “rated as best charity to donate to, by GiveWell” strikes me as most true, or just simply “GiveWell’s top recommended charity”.
I completely understand where you’re coming from Habryka, but as this proposal is for a very mixed audience, I decided not to use that kind of language as I believe it would distract from the primary message. Your last two suggestions look like they have merit, though they’re still not quite saying what I want to convey. I’ll take them into consideration.
For the most part, I wanted to make it clear that GiveWell isn’t some other meta charity claiming some charity is ‘the best’ for the sake of it. For example, in Australia we have an organisation that puts out their ‘charity of the month’ which really means nothing.
There are extra benefits from replacing “most effective” with “most cost-effective”—you help nudge the audience towards thinking of cost-effectiveness as an important metric for charities.