[Someone1234]

I both agree and disagree.

On one hand I agree that it would be nice to opt out of charities you disagree with. However I think in doing so it would destroy "Dollar a Day's" USP.

To me the USP of "Dollar a Day" is: Completely hassle free donating at an affordable cost ($30/month) which gives you almost endless positive feedback (i.e. every day you're reminding of why you're a "good person").

As soon as you start adding complexity then the USP changes from "completely hassle free" to "something I have to check every single day." Plus people will have to grasp how the whole skip system works (e.g. if I skip a day, is it still $30/month? If it is then where does that $1 go? What if I skip tons of days? What if I don't redistribute that $1 by the end of the month, where does it go, etc).

So I agree with your point, but I disagree that "Dollar a Day" should implement it. Instead they should stick to their USP and make very sure they don't mis-fire on the charity selection front (e.g. "Today is a $1 donation to the Republican Party," "Today is a $1 donation to Susan G. Komen," etc).

[btown]

People read countless mailing list digests, site updates, etc. every day. On the spectrum of "hassle-free," even if something's not all the way over at "no action needed," it's still a vast improvement for it to be at "action only needed when I really disagree with today's charity choice."

[dnautics]

on the UI front, you could make it as simple as a 'swipe left/swipe right'.

[briandear]

Hot or Not for Charities! Awesome idea!