Brenton: we recognize that there’s a tradeoff when it comes to the blog tone. Given what GiveWell is today, we think it’s important to emphasize credibility above entertainment/opportunities to get attention (some discussion of this our February post on high-level priorities).

Dean: we are very early in the process of the shift described and do not yet plan any specific recommendations of restricted funding. So when you ask whether there are any online discussions of the issue, the answer is that this post is the potential beginning of such a discussion (it isn’t an announcement of a finalized shift). We’ve laid out the reasons we think the benefits outweigh the costs and would be happy to consider responses.

Givewell funding projects is a very different kind of work than what you are known for and what is currently described on your webpage. It really is a different direction…

Givewell’s unique advantage in advising donors, that there is not the chance of, or even the appearance of, a conflict of interest, is going to be lost….

I wonder where you can point us to where the discussions took place as to the objections and concerns that you mentioned….and there been any discussions online regarding this issue that we can see…..

After reading this post I’ve completely backflipped on my previous thoughts and I can now see why it’s necessary for you to go in this direction, and that it’s a good idea; particularly if you can maintain your previous activity with the present workforce. I’m with you.

But to add a thought about this new direction Holden, your very first blog post read that the reason people would read this was that in your experience, you “know that no matter how pressed for time I am, I still read random crap online. Now I want to be your crap.” So that has worked great for me, and congrats on becoming my and many other people’s crap, but you’re right that it is ‘crap’ that people read online. It’s snappy crap, it’s humorous crap, and while it’s always been more thought provoking than typical internet crap, for a long time this blog was snappy and humorous; it was full of short snippets of things that happen in charity today, with pretty interesting perspectives on them. That was tops for getting people interested, for making them feel like they know you, and ultimately for getting people to follow your work. But have a look at the length of any of the later blog posts, and it’s pretty clear that they’ve changed to being pretty solidly in depth, they take effort to process, and they certainly don’t fit into what I’d think of as typical, internet crap. I get the reasons that it’s gone this way, and people who have been reading this blog for years will get that too and will be happy to come along for the ride. I suppose I just wonder if I would have begun reading this regularly if the first thing I came across here felt more intellectually heavy than the neuro lecture I had just come out of.

Thanks for explaining your new direction, thanks for the longer posts that we get now, please keep it going, but I’m sure that you and your staff still have those interesting epiphanies which used to constitute blog posts – and I for one would love to hear them.

Cheers, Brenton.

I understand the argument for you becoming more biased. I am fine with that.

We would benefit from a great deal more study of charity outcomes. I’m not really all that concerned about the objectivity of those doing it. Those that just make excuses for whatever they like won’t be of much value. Those that have a strong bias but put in good analysis and are not afraid to be open with outcomes (not just present those that support there cause) are great.

Keep up the good work.