Biggest slices? Of course.
Charities tend to be short of funds - short in that they can't do all they want to do.
Some will be more efficient than others, some will make more of a difference in sheer numbers helped than others.

But to the person being helped, whether here or in a different country, the help provided by the charity can make a large difference.
Very hard to compare charities against charities much - different groups, different needs, different ways of working.
A charity that helps just a dozen very disabled people to follow their dreams might be using money that could be spent providing safe drinking water for thousands of people. But each does something in the lives of individuals.

Be nice if the cake was a lot bigger. But it isn't.
So charities tend to chase the same millions of donors, the same (to a degree) charitable trusts, the same companies and so on.
Funding tends to dictate if a charity can do things, or even shuts down (for lack of funds). Some get marketing companies to sell their charity to the public, many use voluntary, employed or professional fundraisers.
The cake isn't as big as charities would like but the needs to be met seem to never go down.

Martin

Blimey, ain't that the truth? And something of an understatement at that. To be fair I don't think Adam was trying to say that all charities are on equal footing, just that it's difficult to find a formula to measure their relative worth. At least that's how I read it.

Agree 100% with the thrust of your argument though Soporo. The less discerning observer who views the whole 'third sector' with rosy romanticism does a disfavour to those charities that are effectively and efficiently run.............. And in my opinion you're also right in asserting that "the many mediocre outfits" divert funds away from organisations that could be doing more to make the world a better place. All too often when you try to hold a charity accountable for its performance/conduct you're told that you're wanting to take money out of the hands/foods out of the mouths of the weak and vulnerable. This is utter cobblers. Most charities don't make the philanthropic cake any bigger, they just compete for the biggest slices.    

Don't shoot the messenger

Really, Adam, without wishing to sound like a broken record, but I must take issue. You do charities a great disservice by suggesting that there is no-one knows what makes a good one. Whilst you may be right in that work on this queation is still very much "in progress" there is a worrying assumption in your entry here that no charity actually is better than another and on thta point you are plain wrong. In fact I'd go so far as to say that this entry only helps to perpetuate the myth that doing a bit of "charity" is enough. I don't agree - surely charities set up to help people have a duty to do their utmost to do that as best they can? But as long a supposedly informed commentators like you suggest that actually, being a charity really is all you need to qualify for instant angel status you damage and denigrate the excellent work that many charities are striving to achieve. You are essentially giving high achieving, well run, effective organisations a pat on the head and lumping them in with the many mediocre outfits out there, who in some cases divert funds that could spent much better on organisations that are actually getting the job done.