I appreciate the response. You're right about my tone. I can be an obnoxious guy, especially when something doesn't make sense to me. And you're right that many people wouldn't have responded as Katya did - she would have been justified in a response with the same content and more insults (although that wouldn't have bothered me, to be honest - I just don't care about tone very much, which is probably where this disagreement comes from in the first place).

The implication that I'm not open to dialogue and/or don't do my homework is off base. We seem to agree on that now, and that leaves the accusation that my tone was unnecessarily obnoxious, which we also agree on (the accusation is correct).

Oh Holden, why did you have to point out my own hypocrisy? :)

Yes - I totally could have emailed you first, but instead flew off the handle a bit. I've seen a lot of irresponsible blogging lately, and it's a sensitive subject for me. While I stand behind the general message of my post, I agree that I should have checked in with you first.

I fundamentally respect what you are trying to do, but I still have problems with some of the methodology. In fact, I titled my post "When Blogging Sucks" because I was trying to mock the inflammatory title of YOUR post, "Network for What?" I just feel like there were unnecessary shots taken at an organization that's doing good stuff.

To me, improving transparency and accountability in the sector is hugely important. So I respect what you're doing. I just want to see it done in a way that encourages dialogue, not flame wars. From my perspective it was incredibly generous of Katya to respond to openly to your post. I must not be as good a person, because I would have been mad. Not because you dared to question me, but because of the way you did it.

I like the idea of only letting INFORMED bloggers use the net.

Maybe everyone could start off with a "read only" status - once the user has read enough information, they would be allowed to contribute...

Holly, I agree that most nonprofits are doing "their best" to serve their constituents and stakeholders. GiveWell isn't a watchdog blog...they are a group of donors asking questions and providing answers in a public setting. That kind of dialogue is welcomed. And there is dialogue with GiveWell--substantive dialogue. Far beyond a "watchdog" that would issue pronouncements and dire warnings and uninformed opinions. When GiveWell says, "Can you make sense of this?" They actually mean it...at least, that's what I've found in my dialogues with Holden over e-mail and on the Beyond Giving blog.

Having said all the above--I've been on the recieving end of "sucky blogging" (and "sucky giving" too). It's no fun, and it messes with my ability to engage others asking similar questions. You're always wondering if they are just fishing for a way to support their "uninformed opinion."

Transparancy is the magic word. I mean I love blogs and it's allways a great pleasure reading interesting corporate blogs like yours. But the blogosphere is full of different people with different opinions and the result are blog postings like yours, I think. You definitely can't please everybody...

So i'm not exactly sure why Holly was offended by the GiveWell blog. I did read it and thought that some of the questions raised were fine and folks should compare and contrast rates / prices / service etc

I think the non-profit sector has its share of inefficiencies and if we are not willing to listen and address some of the tough questions, things will not improve.

lobo

You are right that the website generally doesn't give the full story where nonprofits are concerned. I have seen copious, frustrating evidence for this, as I've tried to figure out what charities do. Calling to find what I can't find on the website is as necessary as it is taxing - and it is taxing, usually involving many layers of people, the first of which invariably tries to refer me back to the website. I already constantly spend what I consider to be unreasonable amounts of time (certainly more than I need to spend when investigating for-profit activities) answering by phone what I can't find via the web.

This case, though, isn't a case of failing to find info on a website and jumping to a conclusion. This is a case of a website's posing my exact question and giving an answer that is misleading, confusing, and honestly seems for all the world to be written in bad faith. I posted my thoughts on it, and ended up in a conversation with a representative who was able to clarify the issues; I retracted my statement (as you can now see on the post you refer to); but I also pointed out, I think correctly, that the website needs to change. It isn't just that the info wasn't there - it was a bad answer.

I think you used my case as an example of something you hate, without checking out the details of what happened, or the project behind our blog, or contacting me via email or comment. That seems to fall in the same category as what you're complaining about. It doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother you - I think it's fine to use blogs for informal dialogue, and share developing rather than developed opinions, and be unafraid to say something wrong and be corrected (as I did). The important part is that when you're corrected, you recognize and acknowledge it.

I get the impression that some people take on the self appointed "watch dog" role and snarky blogging justdo so to increase their hits.

I also think the imge of the child pouting is correct. Why? Becauses sometimes posts like this are like four year olds seeking attention. The more you give them, the more they act out.

Maybe we should just ignore and focus our attention on meaningful public discourse and conversation on our field that can be critical, but the overall goal is to improve practice .... that requires doing what your suggest ...

Thanks Holly for an authentic post!