This is a WordPress website. And I have done a lot of WordPress optimization in the last 6 months. That optimization correlates with a more than 500% increase in traffic and an almost 50% reduction in webpage loading time. In case you’re interested in how I optimize the website, I’ll tell you how below. Continue reading 11 Steps Toward WordPress Optimization (for both of us)
Reality check: if I am not automatically notified of your research, I’ll almost certainly never know about it. And if I can’t find you online, you might as well not exist beyond your classroom, office, or lab. So if you’re an academic who wants people to actually read your work or even know that you exist, then read the following 250 words. They explain how to make your research followable and visible. It’s really, really easy. Don’t believe me? Check out the video below where I make a website in less than 10 minutes. So stop making excuses. In the words of the great philosopher, Shia Lebouf:
Many academic philosophers and aspiring academic philosophers look to the Philosophical Gourmet Report (PGR) for philosophy ranking — i.e, to rank philosophy PhD programs. For many reasons, academic philosophers are becoming more vocal about their criticism of this philosophy ranking system (e.g., this recent paper in Metaphilosophy). In this post, I will propose a new system based on a variety of the common complaints and suggestions about philosophy’s existing ranking system. In the end, it should be clear that the proposed system could be (i) more useful and visually amenable than existing rankings, (ii) achievable, and (iii) generalizable to the broader academic community.
1. THE COMPLAINTS
The complaints about the rankings are voluminous — what else would you expect from philosophers? In lieu of an outline of every blog post and every public statement, I provide a list of major themes that fall into three different categories: the practice of ranking, the current process of ranking, and the current leadership of the ranking.
Complaints About Ranking
- Rankings might misrepresent the magnitude of the differences between departments.
- Rankings might indicate a false sense of hierarchy and/or prestige.
- Ordinal lists just aren’t that informative.