{"items": [{"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/617014006862?comment_id=617028817182", "anchor": "fb-617028817182", "service": "fb", "text": "Do we think there are benefits to covering the whole field over Givewell's approach? Maybe you can help people with a broader set of values be effective, but that gets complicated! Are you evaluating effectiveness wrt every value set? Wrt the organization's stated goals?", "timestamp": "1371689261"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112848664856303870204", "anchor": "gp-1371691666431", "service": "gp", "text": "The disparity in reported \"money moved\" numbers comes from very different estimation processes. GiveWell does our best to figure out its causal impact on donations. Charity Navigator gets that $10 billion number (roughly) by taking the number of annual unique visitors to its website, dividing by the population of the U.S., and multiplying by total giving in the U.S. Not surprisingly, that leads to far higher results that are much less representative of impact.", "timestamp": 1371691666}, {"author": "Bennett", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/617014006862?comment_id=617041272222", "anchor": "fb-617041272222", "service": "fb", "text": "This reminds me of the debate over greater emphasis on testing and measurable results in schools...  do you think the pros/cons of quantifying and measuring results in charities will line up in a similar way?", "timestamp": "1371696556"}]}