Firstly, we should use commercial software to operate the survey rather than trying to build something ourselves. These are both less effort and more reliable. For example, SurveyMonkey could have done everything this survey does for about £300. I'm happy to pay that myself next year to avoid some of the data quality issues.
It does seem clearly to be worth this expense. I'm concerned that .impact/the community team behind the survey are too reluctant to spend money and undervalue the time relative to it. I suppose that's the cost of not being a funded organization.
asking people to answer a question with a given answer, removing any random clickers or poor quality respondents who are speeding through (eg "Please enter the number '2' in letters into the textbox to prove you are not a robot. For example, the number '1' in letters is 'one'")
Seconded - I'd urge the team to do this, even if it means ignoring some genuine answers (I would expect Effective Altruists to generally put enough effort into the survey to spot and complete this question, though I might be naïve).
Thirdly, we should do more testing by trying out draft versions with respondents who have not written the survey.
An excellent suggestion also. I'd be willing to do this - I imagine anyone else who'd volunteer can comment below and hopefully someone from the team will spot this and send messages.
Have you thought about running future matching fundraisers through an organisation that focuses on fundraising, which in the EA global poverty world I guess'd be Charity Science? I imagine they'd be able to put extra time into promoting it, and'd have a comparative advantage in doing this, whereas you'd have a comparative advantage in earning to give.
Here's a post on the same topic from the early days of the forum by Peter Hurford:
http://effective-altruism.com/ea/7q/to_inspire_people_to_give_be_public_about_your/
Mass media articles about effective charity and the availability of GiveWell recommendations.
Seeding and supporting local groups, like GWWC has been focusing on.
Niche fundraising, like REG did for poker players.
Why the heavy downvoting? There have been relevant recent discussions of this, and they include http://effective-altruism.com/ea/qj/meta_up_and_down_voting_should_be_added_next_to/ and http://effective-altruism.com/ea/q7/my_coming_of_age_as_an_ea_12_problems_with/5o8?context=1#comments
It does seem clearly to be worth this expense. I'm concerned that .impact/the community team behind the survey are too reluctant to spend money and undervalue the time relative to it. I suppose that's the cost of not being a funded organization.
Seconded - I'd urge the team to do this, even if it means ignoring some genuine answers (I would expect Effective Altruists to generally put enough effort into the survey to spot and complete this question, though I might be naïve).
An excellent suggestion also. I'd be willing to do this - I imagine anyone else who'd volunteer can comment below and hopefully someone from the team will spot this and send messages.
Roughly how many resources (person days) have you put into this, and how many do you plan to?
Does ACE place to run any more original studies life the leafletting-effectiveness study collaboration? Would that be what researchers potentially do?
What's been the general tone of the comments?
Have you thought about running future matching fundraisers through an organisation that focuses on fundraising, which in the EA global poverty world I guess'd be Charity Science? I imagine they'd be able to put extra time into promoting it, and'd have a comparative advantage in doing this, whereas you'd have a comparative advantage in earning to give.