Ranking 12000 Universities across the world in this Jan 2011 ranking

[ParentOfIvyHope]

<p>[Ranking</a> Web of World universities: Top 12000 World Ranking](<a href=“http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp]Ranking”>http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp)</p>

<p>With lot more US public universities in the top 20.</p>

<p>

The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets. However web indicators are very useful for ranking purposes too as they are not based on number of visits or page design but on the global performance and visibility of the universities.

</p>

[sorghum]

<p>Hah hah, Rutgers beats Princeton …</p>

[patsmom]

<p>Surprise, surprise…</p>

<p>Where do you find this stuff, POIH?</p>

<p>I love how UF outranks Yale, Princeton and Duke. :rolleyes:</p>

[jym626]

<p>A “ranking” by some group associated with the Spanish ministry of education? Hahahahaha. They should spend more time ranking the skills of the spanish pickpockets (see thread on poster’s son mugged in Spain a few days ago).
Their criteria is the number of web pages and/ or external links??? Too funny. Wonder if the # of hits /posts on cc counts!

Design and Weighting of Indicators</p>

<p>The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only universities and research centres with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses.</p>

<p>The first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), was based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking, adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database.</p>

<p>Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:</p>

<p>Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.</p>

<p>Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search.</p>

<p>Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.</p>

<p>Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

</p>

[thumper1]

<p>POIH…another veiled BRAG about MIT. You know…it’s a great school, but you don’t have to post each and every link you find about the school to support this.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>I’m thinking of making a career move to psychic. I didn’t even have to open the link to see which school ranked on top. It was a toss-up actually, between MIT and Harker, but since Harker is a high school I guessed MIT.</p>

[Lemaitre1]

<p>As proud as I am of my alma mater, The University of Maryland College Park, I really do not believe it is better school than Tokyo University, Cal Tech, Princeton and Yale.</p>

[starbright]

<p>bovertine, you make me laugh out loud.</p>

[coureur]

<p>Just what we need: another college ranking. The world just doesn’t have enough college rankings. Where can we find even more?</p>

[menloparkmom]

<p>^^ lets make one up! [ as long as MIT is on top of course…]</p>