This is a discussion about the submission for companies / ro.
Well, I don’t argue against the reviewer’s comment but I want to give it as example of why GODI is becoming less relevant and I have no motivation to contribute and/or use it in my advocacy activities.
The dataset is complying with all requests except the physical address of the company, which is not present. But it is in open format, under open license etc. GODI rates it 0%, equal with a non-existent dataset. This is plain stupid, IMHO. The methodology is deeply flawed.
Let me explain our rationale here. GODI tries to define a minimum set of data that should be publised in order to make use of the data. Our index is inspired by the work of OpenCorporates but it assesses different data elements (we do not assess availability of company director names, accounts, or shareholdings as OpenCorporates does).
I think we can agree upon the fact that company name and unique company identifier are crucial data points. We can make a point to say that we consider a range of data points and score their availability (e.g. information on shareholdings OR company address). We assume that the information we are assessing is essential.
I see the point that we could also accept more general location descriptions (e.g. city where company is registered), but we assume that most transparent information is given when having the physical location.
We assess all countries against this standard. Yes, in case we cannot find all data, we score them with 0%, but 1) we make clear that the score only refers to our key dataset, 2) we add a lot of information to provide context. We do not deny that data exists. We simply state that the data that is out there might not comply with our minimum criteria (which are based on a statement that the data is only usable if we have some key information).
Maybe @hera can jump in and tell us her opinion about our assessment? Would love to hear more from an OpenCorporates perspective.
In the future we could implement a weighting mechanism that could allow us technically to factor the availability of single data points into our score.
Well, in theory it sounds very good. But in practice, you have a red flag saying that data „It’s not publicly available” which is the same for a dataset that does not exist, and one that exists, is in open format and under open license, and contains all the indicators, except one (which, by the way, is not the most relevant). And for both situation you put a big 0% label.
To understand the difference between the „0% for a dataset that does not exist” and „0% for a dataset in open format, under open license, missing a slightly less relevant indicator”, one should read the methodology and a lot of explanations on some obscure forum.
Maybe if you try to look from the user perspective for a moment, you will understand why this approach, as valid as it may be from the academic point of view, is almost completely irrelevant for my advocacy work.
And one more thing: I can accept and be fine if I am not in your target group. I can use other products for my work. But because I contributed to the GODI in the past, and I used it with some success, I felt the need to express my lack of satisfaction with the current evolutions.