My proportion is 10/42=24%, Giles’ is 26/63=41%, and Peter’s is >33/149=22%. I don’t know that I would draw any conclusions from this, except that it makes the very similar $/person contacted numbers look much more coincidental.
Well Giles clearly did better than us… that’s a big outlier we should consider. But it’s also very sparse data!
And one reason why mine was low was that I did intentionally reach out to pretty much everyone I could, even if I hadn’t talked to them in 4+ years. Naturally, the people who I hadn’t reached out to in 4+ years didn’t respond / donate at the same frequency as my closer friends. …This year when I relaunch the fundraiser I’ll keep it to people I know better.
-
33/149=22%
Just for the technicality, I relooked and it was 35⁄146 = 24%. The same as you! Cool coincidence...
Well Giles clearly did better than us… that’s a big outlier we should consider. But it’s also very sparse data!
And one reason why mine was low was that I did intentionally reach out to pretty much everyone I could, even if I hadn’t talked to them in 4+ years. Naturally, the people who I hadn’t reached out to in 4+ years didn’t respond / donate at the same frequency as my closer friends. …This year when I relaunch the fundraiser I’ll keep it to people I know better.
-
Just for the technicality, I relooked and it was 35⁄146 = 24%. The same as you! Cool coincidence...