If we build decisions (the back end) on information based upon criteria that we don’t understand and with which we disagree then we run some risk of misleading ourselves.

There may be no answers to this except 1) as much transparency as possible about the criteria used in selecting and organizing the information and
2) frequent reminders that these variables exist (akin to the media reminders that survey results have a margin of error of +/- 3%).
3) diligence on the part of the user in understanding that the more important the decision the more crucial it will be that s/he understand how the supporting information was derived.

Thanks for provoking this very interesting and very enjoyable exchange.

Pat

I do think that human decision making is critical in philanthropy and all walks of life. Using the internet to gather information does not mean (and should not mean) that we will take the next step and allow computers to make decisions as well.

There are at least two sets of interwoven criteria at work–the criteria by which information is deemed important and, thus, selected or organized, and the criteria by which the re-organized information is applied in making giving decisions. Obviously, each informs the other and both merit scrutiny.

I think of my econometrician friends who build elaborate models on a series of assumptions, each of which they know to be contestable. Yet, when the model produces results, instead of seeing those results be more speculative or contestable than each of the contestable assumptions, they are seen to have special credibility because they came from the sophisticated model.

Transparency and self-consciousness are, of course, part of the answer.
In using the information I need to know by what criteria it was selected and I need to be explicit with myself and others as to what criteria I’m using in applying it.

That may suggest a problem of infinite regression. I will then want to know by what criteria the selection criteria were selected and, knowing that, by what criteria the second level criteria were selected, etc. (I’m largely kidding here. I think that’s a real a logical problem but beyond the first or second level the only practical solution is to test the results against our intuitions and if they don’t mesh then go back scrutinizing the criteria and the results against one another).

I think the Googlization of philanthropy will come, but until there is a dominant player in the field, its emergence will be slow. If you create a website for any purpose, you can anticipate that it will eventually be indexed by Google. If you want your site to appear near the top of a results page when users search Google for particular terms, there are many search engine optimization techniques available to help make this happen. The key here is that Google is for all intents and purposes the only search engine worth caring about. Nonprofits can use SEO techniques to improve their Google PageRank scores, but until there is a dominant aggregation engine serving philanthropists and foundations, I think sites such as Guidestar and Charity Navigator will continue to be incomplete resources.

Your point on information sharing among funders is super important. I wrote about this in my last Chronicle column.

Funders (and nonprofits) frequently balk at the time and expense of trying to share their knowledge. The point of my column is that they won’t need to carry that cost, the Googlization process will do it for them.

Now as for your differentiation of “Swabification” and “Googlization,” you couldn’t be more right on. The problem though is that each attempt, as I’ve observed them, to provide information about the sector has either been too detailed/obtuse (990s for instance), too limited in the number of nonprofits addressed and therefore of limited use or, in the case of “user generated” content, a mishmash of homilies about the great work being done by Organization X w/o any hard hitting criticism of areas where the nonprofit falls down. IMO, what is needed is for funders — Foundations, individuals, etc — to come together and fund an independent organization dedicated to sharing what foundations learn through their own funding-decision research, and that includes way for nonprofits themselves to promote their own work and critique the work of others. It should also include (a la Charity Navigator) simple a red light-green light method by which “casual” donors can quickly make decisions and learn from “professional” funders (Lucy Berholz’s Endorsement Philanthropy). If a consumer products reviewer (like, say, Consumer Reports) provided the same level of research, the same lack of criticism, the same hard to understand data, that the nonprofit sector accepts as sufficient, they’d be long gone.
Googilization, great but how about some level of being truly straightforward and ending the campfire sing-along approach that says every nonprofit is good simply because they intend to do good and instead hearing from people and funders when a nonprofit isn’t measuring up and doesn’t deserve the giving public’s dollars.

http://www.hausercenter.harvard.edu/search/

If there are other people out there also developing nonprofit-related search engines, I would love to get in contact with them so that we don’t duplicate efforts and could find a way to coordinate our efforts for greater impact. One risk of low cost tools like this is that a bunch of people start using them, but end up all creating the same tool.(Not saying that is happening in this case. Hats off to Tony.)

Michael_Byrne at harvard dot edu