I agree—but my impression is that they consider track record when making the forward-looking estimates, and they also update their recommendations over time, in part drawing on track record. I think “doesn’t consider track record” is a straw man, though there could be an interesting argument about whether more weight should be put on track record as opposed to other factors (e.g. intervention selection, cause selection, team quality).
I agree—but my impression is that they consider track record when making the forward-looking estimates, and they also update their recommendations over time, in part drawing on track record. I think “doesn’t consider track record” is a straw man, though there could be an interesting argument about whether more weight should be put on track record as opposed to other factors (e.g. intervention selection, cause selection, team quality).
I feel like I’m asking about something pretty simple. Here’s a sketch:
FP recommends Charity Z
In the first year after recommending Charity Z, FP attributes $5m in donations to Charity Z because of their recommendation
The next time FP follows up with Charity Z, they ask “What did you guys use that $5m for?”
Charity Z tells them what they used the $5m for
FP thinks about this use of funds, forms an opinion about its effectiveness, and writes about this opinion in their next update of Charity Z
GiveWell basically does this for its top charities.