I like this list. We could improve on it by establishing a hierarchy of metrics.
1st Tier: more quantifiable and objective metrics which are also most strongly tied or correlated with direct impact.
Amount of money moved by Givewell and/or other effective altruist organizations.
Amount of money donated by effective altruists
2nd Tier: quantifiable metrics which aren’t directly tied to increased impact, but are strongly expected to lead to increased impact. In this tier I include memberships which are expected to lead to more donations, and to overcome constraints on talent and human capital.
Number of GWWC members
Number of GWWC pledge signers
Amount of 80,000 Hours career advice requests
Number of effective altruism organizations and projects
Number of job applications at effective altruism organizations
Number of applications for effective altruism funds, contests and projects
Scale and scope of effective altruism organizations and projects
3rd Tier: metrics which are less direct, more subjective, less quantifiable, and are more about awareness than exactly expected impact.
Amount of traffic on this website
Amount of media coverage
Amount of positive media coverage
Level of credibility effective altruism holds in academia
I think it’s possible for one metric to jump from one tier to the next in terms of how much confidence we put on it. This can happen under dramatic circumstances. For example, “media coverage” or “positive media coverage” would be something we would have much confidence in as impactful if effective altruism gets a cover story on, e.g., TIME magazine.
I like this list. We could improve on it by establishing a hierarchy of metrics.
1st Tier: more quantifiable and objective metrics which are also most strongly tied or correlated with direct impact.
Amount of money moved by Givewell and/or other effective altruist organizations.
Amount of money donated by effective altruists
2nd Tier: quantifiable metrics which aren’t directly tied to increased impact, but are strongly expected to lead to increased impact. In this tier I include memberships which are expected to lead to more donations, and to overcome constraints on talent and human capital.
Number of GWWC members
Number of GWWC pledge signers
Amount of 80,000 Hours career advice requests
Number of effective altruism organizations and projects
Number of job applications at effective altruism organizations
Number of applications for effective altruism funds, contests and projects
Scale and scope of effective altruism organizations and projects
3rd Tier: metrics which are less direct, more subjective, less quantifiable, and are more about awareness than exactly expected impact.
Amount of traffic on this website
Amount of media coverage
Amount of positive media coverage
Level of credibility effective altruism holds in academia
I think it’s possible for one metric to jump from one tier to the next in terms of how much confidence we put on it. This can happen under dramatic circumstances. For example, “media coverage” or “positive media coverage” would be something we would have much confidence in as impactful if effective altruism gets a cover story on, e.g., TIME magazine.