Ryan Kaldari wrote:
... There's definitely a lot of work that we need help with,
so any assistance is appreciated!
What can I help with to prepare for experimental measurements? Do you
already have a way to collect arbitrary radio button and checkmark
form responses from your PayPal donations? What format do those get
loged in? I would love to write an R script for doing the regression.
Do you think this sort of thing would work better with radio buttons
like the Red Cross uses, or a set of checkmarks with language
specifying that the funds would be earmarked in equal proportions
between all the checked options -- or is that another independent
variable which should be tested?
Have you looked in to
http://www.wepay.com? They are supposed to be
offering a lower overhead rate than PayPal. I know you have an account
with
moneybookers.com -- have you asked them all for a better deal
from each of them to get some competition between them going?
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely; a multivariate linear regression test
to determine the
extent to which each of the earmark options tends to maximize total
contributions should be run in advance, with a sample size (assuming
30 earmark possibilities offered four at a time in a variety of
different languages and locales) of between 5000 and 30,000 donations.
Is that a practical number?
According to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
there were more than 3,600 contributions on the second day of the 2008
fundraiser. During the first few days the independent variables should
be presented in random permutations. After you've collected enough
data for your desired confidence level (I used 95%) then you can start
sorting them. But if you want to use a lower level of confidence you
can vastly reduce the number of initial observations. If you want to
use a 90% confidence level for 30 independent variables then you would
need less than 290 observations (donations.)
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
... There are a few potential problems with such a system:
* More overhead for managing donations
In most cases, could this be addressed by disclaimers? E.g., "the
Foundation reserves the right to cancel earmarked projects for any
reason, and to override donor selections if funds fall short in any
essential areas"?
* The Foundation is trying to move away from any type
of strings
attached to donations (including grants) so that resources can be
managed optimally and flexibly
If that presents an actual problem with small donations, under a
sufficiently flexible disclaimer, please let me know why.
I do think, however, that such an earmarking system
would make donating
more attractive to some people
Isn't the reason that the Red Cross does it because it substantially
increases donations? Rand Montoya said that he had measured that, and
although I forget the numbers, I remember that it was a very
significant difference.
David Gerard wrote:
Unless the donation is really quite substantial, this may not be
entirely worth the effort.
I know Rand said the effect was substantial, but it varies so much
with all of the different permutations that there is literally only
one way to find out the extent, and that is to measure it
experimentally with actual donors. Merely discussing the
possibilities can not arrive at even a vague idea of how much the
presentation of each option serves to maximize donations.
Best regards,
James Salsman