Error

If people would like to discuss donation decisions, a few of us created this mailing list a while ago: http://​​skillshare.im/​​offers/​​163

revealed preference—look at all those donating through giving what we can, and scale them to an appropriate equaliser so you aren’t just reflecting the views of the rich. But that only captures knowledge about favourites, not why they weren’t choosing the others.

I’m not sure that anything beyond that isn’t going to be either informationally poor or administratively a burden equivalent to givewell’s evaluations.

But I’m not sure this kind of exercise is going to beat Givewell’s approach, as they seem to canvass pretty widely and seek out outside views?

Maybe the answer is to encourage givewell to look broader, or to try and compete with them or animal charity evaluators and try and look at everything?

You could use the public data from the EA survey (or the named donations choices of people on the EA Donation Registry) for this.

Some people might want to give different weight to different EAs according to personal criteria, such as epistemological or ethical views, bias, etc.