[My ‘complainers’ experience comes from years at the helm of the Global Ideas Bank but point taken.]

I guess the true test will be whether the site is used by donors/members of the public, rather than us sector-heads.

Can’t say I’ve encountered those constant complainers myself, and anyway they were invited to comment. (But then, as I avoid the SSE site as the background makes it almost unreadable for me, perhaps I am biased.)
Um, a site called Intelligent Giving, focused on donors, is about fundraising in my book. Not sure what fundraising costs test has got to do with that.

And I would hope that IG is capable of more than your average donor in assessing charities, otherwise it is worse than pointless.

But I’ll reserve judgement for now. And as you say, blogs are more irreverent - my comments here shouldn’t be taken as seriously considered info from VolResource.

First off, anyone running a website (however well designed/navigable) comes across people who will complain and complain….Intelligent Giving seems to have lots of different routes into the content. And a blog always has a more irreverent tone.

Secondly, the site is explicitly NOT focused on fundraising, but on the transparency and reporting of the charities. Indeed, it states on the site by ‘Fundraising Costs’ to “beware this figure: it can be calculated in all sorts of different ways so is best ignored unless very high. Larger charities’ average is around 25%”.

Thirdly, what else does your average donor have to go on apart from the annual report and the website if they are searching around? And how much expertise does it take to work out reserves as a percentage of average income/expenditure? (one of their main measures)…etc.

Early days, as you say, but surely a site that is truly independent of the sector, even if able to be improved, is to be welcomed?