Rob Johnston’s post and those of others reminded me there are many, if not unlimited possibilities to improve. And the key to success is, in Rob’s words, “testing and refinement.”

I liked Rob’s original post regarding Guidestar because it kick-started my thinking. I agree that free access to their data, greater input from nonprofits, and evolving ways of encouraging / sharing donor, service recipient, and others moderated comments would be valuable to us all — donors and nonprofits.

When others can attract attention by hyping 990-based ratings and rankings, there is a demand for concise, content rich profiles of nonprofits.

It’s encouraging to see Bob Ottenhoff / Guidestar seeking input and making a commitment to improve.

There are available methods for separating “verified” official information from comments and ratings. Look again at the Internet Movie Database, for example. The page for “American Gangster” [http://imdb.com/title/tt0765429/] includes the user-selected star rating at the top of the page, then presents the verified facts about the movie until the bottom of the page where “User Comments” and a forum are shared. I find it easy to understand that one section presents the facts and the other section provides the opinions. The combination helps me to understand whether I might want to make the choice of seeing this movie.

Guidestar can support the same selection process, and through testing and refinement, insure that the balance between verified information and public opinion are in some useful balance.

By the way, IMDB accepts public input on the facts presented as well as the opinion. It served something like Wikipedia years before Wikipedia was born. Guidestar could open to take verifiable facts from readers in addition to rants and raves.

While I’ve shared one of my own posts regarding the risks of 990-based rating and rankings of Charity Navigator, Bob Ottenhoff’s comment added to Rob Johnston’s above, and divided by (just kidding) “a Fundraisers” proof that good ideas require great marketing, raises a fascinating question.

Would the comments of Rob’s “people who have given to the organization, volunteered for it, worked for it, or benefited from its services” add clarity to a nonprofit’s profile?

Perhaps. Know that I believe the true value of the Internet is listening.

Should these comments be moderated? Perhaps not. But, if not, how would anyone access their accuracy? Would simply posting comments be as flawed as 990-ratio rankings — but for different reasons?

The “One Post Challenge” is provoking thought and a rolling-model of internet interaction.

While I would like to see Guidestar and others explore various types of ratings and / or comments from donors, those receiving services, and others, those comments might benefit from a substantial disclaimer.

Why? Because of the differences between those who give and those who write — between the characteristics of those who seek to praise and those who wish to criticize — and, between those individuals with valid comments to contribute and those simply motivated by others to record a comment.

I find the difficulty of producing “fast and simple nonprofit ratings” to be the beauty of making individual contributions.

Identifying the world’s best nonprofits may not be easy, but most donors only need to invest the time in getting to know a dozen or so nonprofits. When they do, the quality of their own assessment simply can’t be beat.

Giving is that personal.

It’s true that search engine optimization (SEO) would cover a portion of my concerns. I think that a more search-open site will serve many more people seeking information on nonprofits.

I’m sorry that the other additions Bob describes seem to continue a one-way (nonprofits to public) conversation and ignore the possibilities of using the “wisdom of the crowd” to make a resource more complete than IRS documents and nonprofit “videos, pictures, testimonials, and more.” If Guidestar is opening up, go all the way and make it the center for public discussion of nonprofit organizations. Exploit your cache of IRS documentation and your authority as a valuable resource (along with your new search visibility).

I believe that posting advertising within the new site would be perfectly fine. I don’t hear complaints about the ads in the New York Times or Washington Post. Quality information and community are worth advertising IMHO.

I do hope for better from Guidestar and look forward to coming changes. Bob Ottenhoff’s participation here is a testimony to his willingness to participate and to Sean’s credibility. At the same time, I hope others will join me in urging Guidestar to make the most of its site and adopt more openness and participation. I will offer one possibility:

For each nonprofit listing, enable and invite public comments. Invite people who have given to the organization, volunteered for it, worked for it, or benefited from its services to share knowledge and perspectives. Offer some balance to the nonprofit’s formal report page and the IRS stats.

Good luck Guidestar.

Personally, I’d be interested in suggestions from readers on more features. It seems that Bob is open to comments.

Much of your blog focused on GuideStar being more SEO friendly, and as it turns out, your comments couldn’t be more timely. We will soon be launching a beta of a new way to report and view information on nonprofit organizations which no longer requires user log-in. Even though over 80 percent of our users currently do not register to get the information they are seeking, we would like to make it even easier for donors, the general public and the search crawlers to use our site.

We’re also excited about these new report pages because they will be the first step to building a more interactive community of donors and nonprofits. These pages will allow nonprofits to add videos, pictures, testimonials, and more in order to give donors a closer look at how they deliver on their missions. We also plan to add social networking widgets and tools next year to make this a dynamic information exchange.

Should GuideStar consider selling out? We don’t think so. As you pointed out, we are increasing our financial sustainability by lessening our dependence on foundation funding and increasing our earned revenue stream. That doesn’t, however, diminish our commitment to providing a public service. We continue to make a substantial amount of nonprofit information available at no charge to our users and we have plans to expand our free public services in 08.

I happen to think we’re on the right track and I hope you will agree that selling out isn’t what it takes to move GuideStar to the next level. I look forward to your comments on our new beta site! And, thanks for the suggestions.

To best serve their mission: “to revolutionize philanthropy and nonprofit practice with information,” they have to make their offering to the widest market. That market includes the person searching for information on a nonprofit using a regular search engine, such as Google. I would not object if that information was accompanied by advertising. I use Google and scores of sites that post Google ads and the ads rarely get in my way. (Even when the information is as serious as the 990 filing for a favored nonprofit.) If the site is presenting genuine information I am seeking, the ads are nothing. (On the other hand, if the site is a lure with some recycled bit of information to support ads, I am not pleased.)

Guidestar has established itself as an important resource. If it opened its data to the whole web and invited people to add information, it could move from a nice front end for 990 reports to something that might indeed revolutionize philanthropy through information. That information could also expand beyond tax filings to include “the wisdom of the crowd.” The reason the Internet Movie Database works is that it provides information and opinion from thousands of sources (”I saw this film shooting on the corner of this and that.”)

If Guidestar doesn’t open, perhaps they should change the mission to something more accurate, “to serve the haves with federal tax filings on U.S. nonprofits.”

Also, free online information is often supported by ads. Would you find it acceptable if a Google owned GuideStar displayed ads for competing charities next to the 990s? What about ads from wealth management firms or luxury goods ads?