I think the tone of this post (rather than the helpful info about end-of-year matching campaigns) is why you are getting some downvotes. I understand that you probably dashed off this post quickly -- perfect being the enemy of the good and all that -- but consequently it's a bit hard to understand what you're saying. You jump very quickly between:

• GiveDirectly's main matching campaign has ended
• GiveDirectly is a very effective charity with really positive effects
• People are foolish for continuing to donate on the main website, since they don't know there are smaller ongoing matching drives elsewhere (this comes off almost like you are insulting those people, even though your purpose is of course to helpfully provide them with relevant info!)
• More about GiveDirectly being a good charity
• Kind of a wild non-sequitur at the end, claiming that SNAP is the most effective US government program without explaining any reasoning or linking to any analysis?? (Is SNAP truly more effective than, idk, the long-term geopolitical effects of the NATO alliance, assuming these effects are net-positive? Or what about policies that don't cost anything, like immigrant entrepreneur visas to stimulate economic growth -- are these infinitely effective because the divisor is zero? SNAP is probably the most effective program in a neartermist sense, among large, highly-quantifiable, and highly scalable government programs... but that is a very different claim!)