The future of the charity nominations.

[#1]

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but i'm wondering if a shake up of the charity nominations process is needed?

I know all charities are worthy, but these big national charities get millions in donations every single year, so what we donate is a drop in the ocean to them (yes, they'll still appreciate it and be very thankful, i know that)

But we have tiny independent charities who survive on very small budgets, that will never have a chance against the 'big names'. People seem to vote for the more 'popular' charities, names they're familiar with, especially if they don't frequent the community and read how much certain charities mean to people.

So am i alone in thinking that the big well known charities should be excluded from future nominations, so the smaller charities have a fighting chance, or does anyone else feel the same as me?

All thoughts on this are very welcome.

[#2]

This makes a lot of sense @natty_noo but I suppose some big charities like Cancer research, still need every penny they can get and it affects us all. However, I would be happy if gg decided to do this as we donate ourselves as a family anyway. 

[#3]

@natty_noo

I think we did talk about this a while ago as part of a wider discussion about the charity processes. But I think it’s worth talking about again

The charity money has gone to a smaller charity on at least one occasion (Claire’s house which @mark1101b campaigned for over several payback periods until he got enough community support to win the vote)

I guess people will naturally choose a charity they have some connection to and it is hard work to get people nationally interested in something local.

My main criticism of it just now is allowing charities who have previously won back into the mix. If they were ineligible for longer (or for ever) then by default once the bigger charities have won, smaller ones get more of a look in

[#4]

I wonder as well if it’s with looking st the actual nomination process as part of this discussion?

Does the current system work? It led to a lot of discord this time which started to turn nasty at times. I wonder if we should look at a ‘blind’ nomination process ... a form where you could put the nomination in rather than a thread ... one nomination per person ... it might make the counting easier for Will too as he wouldn’t have to sift through a huge thread where people have voted twice or made comments other than nominations

Those wanting to promote a particular charity could then create a thread to do so

[#5]

@natty_noo

When it comes to nominating a charity, there will always be disharmony in the ranks.

The problem is that the "worth" of any particular charity is very subjective; it is understandable, let's say, that those who have been affected in any way by cancer might support an appropriate charity while animal lovers may favour different charities.

If we stick to a "blind nomination" process, then it is possible that small local charities won't get a look in.

Ideally, taking payback via PayPal gives individuals the opportunity to then pass on the money where they wish and I am sure that quite a lot of us do it this way. At least we get our own choice.

I really am not sure that you will ever find a way that pleases all of the people all of the time - but then we know that isn't possible !!

[#6]

I do agree @frenchielove , cancer has affected my life in a big way too, and i don't begrudge any big charity getting donations. I just think there has to be a fairer way of giving the smaller charities a fighting chance against the well known bigger named charities.

Is that the only smaller charity that has ever won @kath72 , in the whole duration that gg has been running the nominations? It would be interesting to do a comparison of big vs small, just to see how many of each have won overall. I imagine that would be very telling.

I think the nomination process does need a change, but i'm happy to still have it on a thread but only if all comments are removed unless it's a nomination. It did turn a bit ugly this time around, and it didn't look very nice from the outside looking in. I also agree that we need to look at whether a charity should be excluded for longer once they've won, or perhaps for ever.

That's very true @freedmaniac , we'll never please everyone, which is inevitable, unfortunately. I don't know what the answer to all this is, but there has to be a way to get the smaller charities more support, and if they weren't up against such huge names then they might just get that support from the voting members.

I know many do give themselves once they receive their payback, but that might be because they know their chosen charity hasn't a chance of winning.

Thanks for all your thoughts so far, they're very interesting and hopefully we'll find a way forward, maybe gg will even listen if we come up with a good proposal. Who knows, eh?!

[#7]

My opinion on charity votes is once you have won , that charity should not be able to win again full stop .

Also maybe the people who give payback to charity should have the option to choose one of the winners 

[#8]

@bluemoonbaz wrote:

My opinion on charity votes is once you have won , that charity should not be able to win again full stop .

Also maybe the people who give payback to charity should have the option to choose one of the winners 

not the worst idea in the world there are enough charities out there for that to work

[#9]

this should be the present of charity nomination, not the future.

it is shocking that giffgaff would nominate charities who pay their senior staff more than the prime minister, particularly when it is highlighted in the forum.

[#10]

I do agree @tradertall , but it's a bit late now because this period of nominations/voting is done and dusted.

But maybe we CAN do something for the future, that's what i'm hoping for anyway.

And if any staff would like to join in, @t_will @paul_d_ @dez_d @_kara_ @everyone, then please feel free to do so, we may differ on opinion, but all thoughts are valid on this, especially as it's so important.