The problem
"61% of people globally carry a moderate or high sense of grievance — defined by a belief that government and business make their lives harder and serve narrow interests."
— Edelman Trust Barometer, 2025
Across every region, trust in institutions is at or near historic lows. Yet the tools we use to judge leaders have not improved: image, tribal allegiance, speeches, and isolated moments still define who we think is good. The gap between a leader's reputation and their actual record can be vast — and almost no one maps it.
What if goodness left a record?
GoodIdx is built on one premise: character is not what someone claims — it is what they repeatedly do, especially when it costs them something.
What we built
GoodIdx is a public-interest research platform that evaluates public figures and institutions against a fixed, evidence-weighted framework. Not opinion. Not tribal allegiance. A structured review of observable conduct over time — the kind of review that reputation alone cannot fake.
A moral foundation older than politics
The framework draws from the Abrahamic moral tradition — the oldest continuous record of human ethical reasoning. Goodness begins with belief and accountability before a higher standard. It is expressed in how one treats people, especially those with less power. It is tested by what one does when no one is watching. These ideas predate every modern political system by millennia — and have proven more durable than any of them.
Influence is not goodness
GoodIdx measures two things independently: what someone has done (standing) and how much power they hold (influence). Powerful people can score low. Quiet people can score high. The two axes are separate by design — because history is full of influential people who caused immense harm, and full of good people who were never famous.
Observable Standing
Standing scores synthesize five pillars — each grounded in observable criteria (1–17) — using public evidence, not private intent.
Influence
Influence scores (1–100) estimate reach and leverage — institutional command, audience scale, and downstream effects — independent of whether the record reads good or bad. They drive horizontal placement on the map.
Not partisan. Not tribal. Not personal.
The criteria apply identically across ideologies, cultures, religions, and political systems. There is no thumb on the scale for any government, party, or movement. The only question the index asks: what does the record actually show?
What we don't do
- We do not diagnose mental health or assign psychological labels.
- We do not make legal conclusions beyond what the public record clearly supports.
- We do not treat allegations as facts — source and strength are always noted.
- We do not judge private life; only public conduct relevant to the pillars.
- We do not manufacture certainty where evidence is genuinely unclear.
- We do not encourage harassment or dehumanization of any person.