Saying “we think this org is impactful but not our top in terms of [our complicated calculation]” isn’t something that I think a non-EA org would be insulted about.
Saying “you’ll learn a lot there that can help you in the rest of your career” might even be considered positive by such organizations.
(I’m not jumping to my actual proposed solutions because (A) I’m trying to keep the post focused, and (B) I’d like to wait for 80k’s comment, which I expect they’ll write soon, and might address what you (JP) wrote)
It’s rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say “your org is not impactful, we’re sending people to you with the understanding that they’ll build career capital and leave”.
See 80k’s response, which I interpret as “they are willing to be ‘rude’ and say that an org isn’t top recommended”
We plan to visually distinguish between orgs on our top recommended list (which we think are the most promising places to work in each problem area) and other orgs we list.
My secondary pushbacks are
Saying “we think this org is impactful but not our top in terms of [our complicated calculation]” isn’t something that I think a non-EA org would be insulted about.
Saying “you’ll learn a lot there that can help you in the rest of your career” might even be considered positive by such organizations.
(I’m not jumping to my actual proposed solutions because (A) I’m trying to keep the post focused, and (B) I’d like to wait for 80k’s comment, which I expect they’ll write soon, and might address what you (JP) wrote)
JP, regarding your point 3:
See 80k’s response, which I interpret as “they are willing to be ‘rude’ and say that an org isn’t top recommended”
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YCMgg6x6zWJmran5L/criticism-of-the-80k-job-board-listing-strategy?commentId=zZHtmpFRXGg8SK43b
I endorse their approach here