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 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.