Does anyone have any data or anecdotal evidence on how often people have actually stayed in EA houses that sprung from this list?

Anyone know if there is a more web-based version of this paper/research? The 754 page pdf seems like possibly not the best format.

Audio recordings would be good, thanks.

Not sure about the benefit/cost. Am I naive to think something like:

• Tripod (or a small stabilizer on a desk)
• Volunteer (or paid person) in each room, sits at front or operates tripod
• Uses own camera phone
• Uploads to YouTube directly from phone

Time cost: Maybe 1-2 hours of 'equivalent extra person work' per 1-hour session (say 90 minutes).

Benefit: If even 5-10 people watch the videos, I suspect the value outweighs the cost.

• Enabling them to shift time; e.g., do 1-on-1's if attending ...

• Encouraging some people to not come in person (saving tremendous expense obviously)

• Presenter and their team can re-watch the video to improve their own presentation, as well as using it for onboarding etc.

My guess (very rough) is the value 'per watcher who spends at least 20 minutes viewing on the talk' has about 20% of the value of the 90 minutes spent by the person filming and uploading on average.

(Obviously more so if it's a highly productive person doing the watching, or if the speaker themselves watches it to improve their presentation.)

So I guess if at least 5 people watch the average video for 20 minutes or more, this would be worth doing. Not sure how that compares to the statistics you've seen on usage.

Could it be enabled on a 'strictly voluntary basis', i.e., give permission for people to record certain sessions, announce this, and upload it to an (unofficial?) channel?

These are useful, thanks. I would suggest we also enable/permit a lower-quality recording to be posted or shared of the other talks. It should be fairly costless to have a few people record and post these with camera phones, etc., and I believe it would add substantial value.

I think this was downvoted because of a lack of reasoning transparency.

it makes the most sense to donate to them only when someone is going to 3x or more match your donation

Maybe  it makes the 'most' sense relative to donating at another time, but is 
their impactful per-dollar even close to comparable with other top charities?

Also, when does that match occur and is it really a counterfactual match?

, I recommend investing the money you plan to donate so that you donate more.

On what basis? How do you know the investment will outperform the relative value of the investments the charity would make over this time?

>  and their Our Impact page for information on their impact (e.g., Lives saved, School shootings prevented, etc.).

I took  a glance at that page, but it is very much not transparent
 

• Lots of images making it harder to see content
• It has claims without clearly linked sources
• Doesn't clearly demonstrate that the 'preventions' are relative to a counterfactual 
• No clear reporting of benefit/cost
  
  I just thought I would give my feedback on this well-intentioned post. Hope it's helpful and taken in the positive spirit it was meant

I didn't end up getting around to do a more formal survey. Obviously the one in the approval voting above is deeply unscientific and doesn't represent any particular defined sample. 
 

Just a quick note as The Unjournal was mentioned. We commission expert peer review and rating (and pay the evaluators) and all evaluation is made public. We focus on potentially-impactful work in economics, social science, and policy. We are aiming at a standard and metrics that will be comparable and can be benchmarked against the traditional journal tiers, as well as ratings and adding value on other dimensions.

Submitting your work to The Unjournal basically does not preclude you from also submitting it to anywhere else. We don't 'publish' your work or claim ownership of it; you need to have it made available publicly (in an archive, working paper series, etc., we can advise on this if you like). We simply evaluate it. 

Anyways, this is all stated better in our 'nutshell explanation', and our 'why should authors engage' and on our page (unjournal.org), which has an enabled chatbot you can use to ask it questions. 

Thanks, this is helpful. I'll reach out. Fwiw I've added some public comments on the pdf using hypothes.is (although some of these comments are Unjournal-specific). 

All hypothes.is comments on that hosted page are visible with this search query 

or here, in context if you have the hypothes.is plugin.