Top 10 Best Web Hosting Reviews - SCAMS EXPOSED
Visit hosting-reviews-exposed.com for more information. Are "HOST REVIEW" sites honest? Are they unbiased, impartial, and factual... or ...
best rated web hosts - Bookshelf
|
140 pages |
Kiplinger's Personal Finance The first step is finding an ISP to major Web-hosting ISP You'll find a ranked list of 25 Web hosts from the Ultimate Web Host List at www .webhostlist.com, ... |
|
About this book The most trustworthy source of information available today on savings and investments, taxes, money management, home ownership and many other personal finance topics. |
|
|
|
Internet Business Monthly Newsletter Web Host Directory Awards are given to the best Web hosts in a number of ... Then Web Host Directory's Review Board evaluates the top-rated hosts in each ... |
|
396 pages |
SIGIR 2000, proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval : ACM SIGIR, July 24-28, 2000, Athens, Greece Experts rated the quality of items on a scale of 1 (worst) to 7 (best). Experts rated items by filling out a web-based form; the form presented no ... |
|
|
Chess life Internet service providers and web hosts store your information on their ... with cheating by people who use computers while playing rated games on USCL. ... |
|
|
The Hollywood reporter (rated for some innuendos and brief language) Columbia Pictures "The ... Museum of Television & Radio hosts gala to honor the Sony Corp. chairman and CEO. ... |
Scholarly Communications will Transform via Cybermetrics
Impact is a big deal to scholars and their sponsors. Really big. The Impact Factor of the journal in which one publishes adds or subtracts value from one's publications. This algorithm is derived from a calculation based chiefly on the number of citations a publication generates. It has become a prominent determining factor in securing grants, academic posts, tenure, and advancement. And why not? Don't we want scholars to be making an impact? With today's info glut, isn't it even more important to preserve and promote systems that help us to know what information should be given more authority?
I will first look into the history of Impact Factor and will claim that this early effort to grapple with information overload has improperly become institutionalized and is neither trustworthy nor adequate for today's information culture. Then I will open the discussion of what can or should be measured through cybermetrics with online scholarly communication. Academia has some very good places to go with its treasure trove of existing and ongoing scholarship; it can't get there by clinging to authority systems based on pre-Internet bibliometrics.
in which Eugene Garfield first proposed the creation of a citation index for science. He was trying to solve a problem we face on a bigger scale today. With so much information circulating and the great need to sift the wheat from the chaff (even 40 years before the Internet), Garfield proposed that citations be used as a quality filter. The reasoning here is sound. After all, when people reference others' research, it shows they consider that research important. So, if lots of people cite the same things, the idea goes, then those things obviously have more influence. Quantifying citations has become the post-publication counterpart to pre-publication peer review. Peer review evaluates work before it is in print; cumulative citations show how researchers are filtering for quality by way of what they read and cite.Could it be that today's web page hits or inbound links are the analogs to traditional scholarly citation indexes? Yes and no. But before getting into the details of webometrics or cybermetrics, it's important to appreciate the impact of the impact factor upon academia and the problems this has created. ( Roger A. Brumback ). Less apocalyptic but equally earnest protests are widespread. The British Medical Journal has even commissioned a series of articles analyzing problems with Impact Factor , and in a stinging editorial from the Journal of Cell Biology , the inadequacies of Impact Factor are laid bare.
What could go wrong? Well, first of all, Impact Factor simply is not the objective instrument academic evaluators treat it as. Eugene Garfield commercialized his Science Citation Index, creating the Institute for Scientific Information -- thus, the "ISI Impact Factor" for which it is so famous. ISI carefully guards the secret formula(s) that yield their Impact Factor. Unlike the scholarship rated by Impact Factor, this proprietary instrument itself is not subject to review
This secrecy is a recipe for abuse, and bias becomes even more likely when one takes into account that ISI and its valuable Impact Factor were purchased by Thomson Corporation, a publisher of scientific journals (which are rated by ISI). Thomson has aggressively marketed the ISI metric along with its scientific publications that garner $600 million annually. This glaring conflict of interest is ignored by academic institutions because the value of using the ISI Impact Factor in the academic evaluation system is greater than the potential threat of internal bias within Thomson.
And there lies the true problem. The abuse of Impact Factor has come through institutional over-reliance upon it. From the beginning Impact Factor was never meant to be a primary or sole criterion for judging academic quality. But as many others have pointed out, The problem is that Impact Factors were never designed to be used for evaluating the quality of scientists or their research projects. So, why are they being used for this? It is a cop-out by reviewers, referees and, perhaps more importantly, administrators who are distributing funds — it is a brutish, simplistic quantitative tool that allows them to avoid hard decisions in the judgement of quality. (Graeme Martin, " Impact Factor=Rip-Off Factor ")
Sadly, there are very strong forces at play to keep the Impact Factor as the prime mover in the evaluation of scholarly publications. For Thomson, obviously, the sale of high impact journals is extremely lucrative, so the reputation of the index they publish through ISI directly affects their bottom line. For academics, Impact Factor provides an attractive simplicity that is hard to let go of. Impact Factor works for promotion and tenure committees or for granting bodies the same way SAT and GPA scores work for college admissions: a number gives evaluators a rapid and efficient way to make hard decisions.
The critics have not had trouble punching holes in ISI's bibliometrics. Out of tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journals, why are only a few thousand indexed? How can a new journal ever compete with an older one for citations? Why are only very recent publications factored in? What scholarly items make the count in deciding impact -- proceedings? notes? or just complete articles? What if in one field proceedings have more weight and articles have more weight in another? How does one compensate for self-citation? Doesn't this system encourage rhetorical footnoting? Isn't it true that faulty scholarship is often highly discussed, giving it a faux authority because it gets cited so much?
Impact Factor's authoritative and proprietary nature is not consistent with the ascendant open paradigm of the online knowledge commons. It is unsurprising to find an Open Access outlet like Public Library of Science ONE rejecting ISI's Impact Factor altogether. Earlier this year, this journal announced it would be exposing all sorts of data about the articles it publishes in an effort to encourage innovative and article-level metrics. We are entering a new era of data availability, and it would be as foolish not to look to new metrics based on that data as it would be to try to keep the leaks patched in ISI's Impact Factor. It is time for cybermetrics.
Cybermetrics
While cybermetrics is in its infancy, the principles informing it are readily understood, and we can look at current efforts to apply cybermetrics in order to get our bearings on the future.
Early webometrics paralleled bibliometrics. The various links back to a given page can be quantified into a measure of impact or authority. But such a "Web Impact Factor" (WIF) has really just been a Web1.0 effort. Today, cybermetrics is growing up as people are understanding and evolving uses of networked information and developing general and commercial Internet metrics for online information. This is the first thing to understand about cybermetrics: it promises not simply an electronic updating of Impact Factor, but a suite of analytical tools that can be variously applied and customized. And whereas Impact Factor has been completely journal-centered, the
In what follows, I'm drawing heavily from work being done by the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientГficas Cybermetrics , "devoted to methodology explicit and have created their journal as an organ for publicly discussing and improving those methods. In other words, CSIC is in keeping with principles of transparency and collaboration that we are recognizing as superior values in the information economy of the 21st century.
Beyond Journals: Measuring Institutional Impact
Since 2004, the Ranking Web of World Universities has been published semi-annually in an effort to showcase the overall intellectual output of universities and to encourage best practices for electronic publishing and for exposing archives intelligently online. While the salient outcome of their project is a numerical ranking that may seem as simplistic for universities as ISI is for journals, the premises upon which CSIC has developed its alogrithm are an intriguing challenge to traditional measurements of scholarship.
The novel assumption here is that universities can and should be measured in terms of their intellectual output and overall presence online. Universities have long been ranked (as with US News & World Report's annual college rankings), but the Ranking Web ignores cultural reputation or alumni surveys in favor of a data-driven index that reveals not campus life or teacher-student ratios, but an institution's intellectual web presence.
Why shouldn't universities have a measurable online presence -- one that is not simply the product of company PR or cultural reputation, something independently measured and based upon overall intellectual output? Consider how this might change the way universities are viewed generally (or how they might view their contributors internally) once it becomes evident that certain kinds of activities can boost one's intellectual imprint on the world. . Such measurements could materially affect institutional practices and increase productive competition. It could also throw traditional academic measurement systems into a tailspin.
The criteria and weighting of factors within CSIC's university rankings bear careful discussion. Are the many informal web pages and all that non-scholarly content universities put on the web to be thrown in with peer-reviewed publications in evaluating a school's intellectual contributions? Rather than opening that can of worms right now, I'd like to look just at the most traditional measurement of intellectual output, peer-reviewed publications. Let's consider what it might mean to create some sort of aggregate measure for institutions of its overall output of conventional scholarship.
Tracking an Institution's Overall Scholarly Output
It will be surprising to non-scholars to learn that universities do not track the scholarly output of their faculty members. There may be some internal fact finding and summary reports prepared for accrediting agencies, but until recently, there has been little effort to systematically gather and centralize the scholarship produced by an entire institution. This is due to the fact that faculty are evaluated individually for tenure and promotion within their specialties. And while a university may feature selected scholarship within its public relations, there has been no motive to try to gather faculty work en masse. It has been the function of journals and libraries to gather and preserve scholarship.
But the Internet is changing that. Now, universities and research centers are creating institutional or disciplinary repositories to warehouse scholarship for permanent access. This is driven by the Open Access movement. Now, leading schools like Harvard and Stanford have put in place policies requiring faculty to retain copyright of their publications and to grant the school a non-exclusive license to permanently host copies of all their scholarship in a local archive.
Here is where cybermetrics is going to prove very interesting. Right now such archiving is being led by librarians who see the virtues of organizing knowledge with metadata and preserving permanent open access to it. Faculty (and most administrators) have not yet recognized that this is far more consequential than simply preserving a record. Archiving means a kind of permanent publishing, and increasingy sophisticated data harvesting tools and data mining activities are already creating a longer and richer life for publications that in the past have only been valued at the point of publication. The after market for academic content is going to be huge, and the true demand of that content is just beginning to make itself felt. Metrics will signal the demand and change these repositories into active assets of the university. Record labels and non-academic publishers have found that Long Tail economics, recommendation systems, and social media have combined to give renewed attention to products once lingering in obscurity. How long will academia resist the cultural and technological forces pushing for the robust discovery and use of its legacy content? About as long as it takes for administrators to read usage metrics and see the value of awakening academia's dormant intellectual assets.
While composing this post I received an email alerting me that a scholarly presentation I once gave on Beowulf was downloaded from where it is hosted online. Suddenly, I am wondering about giving that presentation a revision. After all, now that I can get reports on the use of my work, it changes how I see it and configures my future projects. What happened to me incidentally today is what is happening on a more organized basis at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln through their institutional repository, Digital Commons . There, metrics on the use of archived scholarship have begun to change how faculty view their work. Rather than simply seeing to the publication of their work in a respectable journal, faculty are now seeing the value of their publications being housed where they will be continuously used and where they will get reports each month about the frequency with which their various publications have been downloaded (or commented upon). It is the pattern of things to come.
I foresee the day that both institutions and individual scholars will take as keen an interest in the ongoing life of publications as they now do in placing those publications in respectable journals, precisely because metrics will drive interest that way. If an assistant professor can show that an article published in a relatively minor venue is generating lots of traffic on the university's institutional archive or has created productive attention to the university, will this not be relevant to how that professor is evaluated? Or, if publications in highly respected journals prove to attract nary a hit or generate hosts of negative comments, will this not change the way reputation and rewards work in academia? We have barely scratched the surface of the coming impact of institutionally based scholarship metrics.
These metrics will change the role of academic journals, too, taking from them much of the authority they have traditionally held as arbiters of quality. Peer-review that happens pre-publication will be in competition with the emerging values that attend the use of scholarship once it is published and exposed to the web. Cybermetrics will be driving that change.
We will see the day when universities will try to maximize the value of their intellectual endowment by actively monitoring and marketing their scholarship (old and new). I broached this topic earlier by introducing the concept of Scholarly Inquiry Optimization to parallal Search Engine Optimization (SEO). SEO and web analytics are now firmly entrenched in enterprise, and the value this monitoring adds will at some point become centrally relevant to scholarship. The sort of data now available to those monitoring web assets for business is astounding -- from granular reports of the location of web visitors to the type of platform used to access the data, to a whole host of attention data as clickstreams are tracked and crunched. This makes for a robust way to fine tune marketing and to better match the needs of customers with services and products. Such data begs to be used; the utility is self-evident. And why wouldn't universities begin to capitalize (perhaps even literally) on being able to monitor and direct the attention of its web visitors? Won't this also affect how resource decisions are made on campuses? Once demand can be measured and tailored to customers, we'll have new criteria for organizing and prioritizing scholarly activity.
Measuring Scholarly Media, Metering Scholarly Data
The Internet is spawning the use of multimedia in every aspect of culture, including scholarly inquiry, and we will soon see media-rich born-digital scholarship complementing and competing with traditional articles and books. And as Open Access begins to predominate within scholarly publishing, the effect will do far more than increase the exposure and use of traditional scholarly publications; we will see value accruing through opening scholarly media -- old and new -- to remixing and reuse.
There will be new things to measure when a social scientific study includes the publication of protocols and data that can be separated from the original scholarly study for separate significant use. CSIC measures "rich content" web pages, which for now might simply be limited to the presence of images, audio, or video. But it is not hard to imagine putting in place ways to measure the creative reuse of open scholarly media. A service such as TubeMogul already offers the ability for mainstream media to detect and measure pirated video (by tracking a video's "DNA") in order to provide content producers a sense of the overall impact of their content (which sometimes goes much further through informal and illegitimate channels than through the channels chosen by the content producer). When academic institutions abandon the foolishness of propertization of intellectual output and realize the enormous value of creative commons licensing, cybermetrics will be there to track how broadly and variously researchers' work is used. And as scholars turn to audio and video formats for disseminating their ideas, services like TubeMogul can provide granular analysis of user attention. It will be possible to pinpoint the exact second within a lecture when user interest wanes. This sort of data will provide feedback loops to improve academic media and keep existing content in play longer. Cybermetrics will reveal better ways to use, re-use, and improve intellectual content -- including the application of scholarly content to pedagogical uses (and teaching media to scholarly purposes).
We will see open data becoming increasingly important as an asset in the knowledge commons. As researchers optimize their results by drawing upon publicly available data sets, cybermetrics will be there to meter usage of that data. Suddenly, that study that is a decade old will have its data refreshed as another researcher employs it in a different study. This will reflect positively on the original researchers and funders. Such extended life for data hinges upon metrics that document and encourage the extended life of scholarly products.
Cybermetrics and Structured Knowledge
Cybermetrics will encourage scholars to observe the protocols of the semantic web. The more machine-readable information is, the more readily it can be shared, re-used, and measured. XML and standarized schema will enrich the life and usage of intellectual content. Scholars can therefore be measured not just on their actual research or their arguments, but on how efficiently they have structured their work to be further used and built upon. We will be measuring how well knowledge is structured to articulate with the knowledge commons, how open it will be to data harvesters and data mining. We will measure the degree to which scholars are building the cyberinfrastructure by making their work not just an end in itself, but a building block for future work.
Cybermetrics and Informal Knowledge
Scholarship today is understood largely in terms of the formal genres of publication (the scholarly monograph, the academic article), and certainly traditional bibliometrics are conducted only upon these sorts of finished products. But within the new paradigm there will increasingly be more value placed upon informal and in-process knowledge: research logs, field notes, lab notebooks, and a whole range of teaching resources and media. Part of this new value will come precisely because the usage of such content can and will be measured.
What is going to happen when a teacher's online syllabus or that professor's blog or that open science notebook can be as readily monitored as the usage of a peer-reviewed article? We will see things that have normally been undervalued or seen as ephemeral having increased permanence, publicity, and use. And as faculty contribute Open Educational Resources as readily as they do Open Access publications to their institutional repositories, there wil be creative overlap (as well as vexing competition) between those intellectual assets aimed at teaching and those aimed at scholarship. Again, the measurement of usage will be central to the reshaping and evolution of various kinds of intellectual output.
Cybermetrics and Real-Time Scholarship
Data drives knowledge, and the measurement of data now possible on the web will continue to reshape the forms of knowledge and the formats of scholarship -- especially because of the ease and efficiency of measurement tools. Those tools are driving faster feedback and more granular analysis of user behavior, leading to cycles of analysis and genesis that approach real-time. A tool like Reinvigorate extends Google Analytics to make real-time feedback loops viable. Much more remains to be thought through on the topic of real-time scholarship, but I raise it here as an emerging phenomenon that, like so many other things online today, is driven not just by emerging communication tools like microblogging, but by web metrics. The networked environment is continuously evolving improved ways of tracking behavior, providing feedback, and creating value. Even though these phenomena are mostly in the enterprise space, they will certainly not remain there.
Scholarly communication -- as academia in general -- will be changing because of how knowledge and data can be measured. Cybermetrics is not some curiosity, nor is it anything close to being a modest update of bibliometrics or the ISI Impact Factor. Print-based metrics will be rapidly transcended by a richer, deeper set of measurements that will help broaden the concepts, genres, and uses of all our intellectual work.
How to Ruin a Perfectly Good Product Market
By definition (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary), the word “ wholesale ” means “the sale of commodities in quantity, usually for resale (as by a retail merchant)”. That definition has been around since the 15th century.
It does NOT mean “the absolute rock-bottom most dirt cheap price ever so that you can beat everyone else’s prices no matter what”.
There are some very good wholesale suppliers of brand name products out there. We publish a Directory of those who are willing to drop ship those products directly to your customer from the warehouse, one at a time, at wholesale . It’s an excellent way to do business without spending a ton of money on stocking an inventory. However, to be successful in business, you need to understand what “ wholesale ” really means.
A wholesale distributor is a company that owns their own warehouse (no middlemen) and supplies you with products at prices that are significantly lower than Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). That’s what wholesale means.
So why do you sometimes find wholesale prices on some products that may be very close to the RETAIL prices for that same product on the Internet? So close, in fact, that there is not enough of a profit margin to make it worth selling?
Here’s one very big reason:
Chopper Bob has opened a store on the Internet. He thinks he’s come up with an original idea. He’s going to chop prices right to the bone on the products he sells. He thinks that because his prices will be so low, EVERYBODY will buy from him, and he’ll make lots of money by selling large numbers of products. All those small profits will add up to a lot. Chop, Bob, Chop! See Bob Chop!
Chopper Bob is essentially chopping his own throat, although he does not see that yet.
Chopper Bob finds his first product to sell. It’s a brand name VCR. This VCR has a Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of $149. This is the retail price that the manufacturer suggests it be sold at in order to make a good profit.
Chopper Bob has found that the wholesale price on this VCR is $69. At that wholesale price, the profit margin to be made by selling it at MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price) is 54%, which comes out to an $80 profit on each sale. That manufacturer has made a pretty good suggestion, wouldn’t you say?
However, Chopper Bob believes that he is the first human being in history who has decided to sell at dirt-cheap prices and make money on volume sales. Because he is Chopper Bob, he’s going to Chop the price on that VCR on HIS web site all the way down to a mere $79.
People are going to flock to his web site, and buy thousands of VCRs for $79. Chopper Bob is sure that he will get rich from all those $10 profits, once they begin to add up. Internet Retailers will tell stories of his success for years to come.
Pretty soon, some people DO start to come to his site, and they start ordering VCRs for $79. Chopper Bob is happy. He was right!
However, people who want to order VCRs are not the ONLY people coming to his site. There are also people coming to his site who want to SELL VCRs.
You see, Chopper Joe has also decided that he is going to undercut everyone else and make big money on volume sales. Surprising? Not at all. Most people who decide to open a business entertain this idea at least once.
Chopper Joe searches the Internet for the absolute lowest-priced competitor, and finds Chopper Bob selling the VCR for $79. Chopper Joe puts it on HIS site for $78.98.
Now, along comes Chopper Jane, also searching for the lowest priced competitor. She finds that it’s Chopper Joe, and SHE starts selling the VCR for $78.88.
Pretty soon, this turns into a feeding frenzy that would scare a Great White Shark.
The result of all this? The market price of the VCR (the price that it’s generally available for sale at) plummets from the MSRP of $149 all the way down to about $78.
Suddenly the original genius, Chopper Bob, finds himself undercut at every turn, and everybody is selling the VCR dirt-cheap. Now that there is so much competition at that same price level, nobody is making any money.
As long as you’re dealing with a genuine distributor, like the ones we list, you will always find a good margin between wholesale and MSRP. It’s the fact that some people drive down the market prices on certain products that causes the problem.
The manufacturer and the wholesale distributors of the VCR don’t care about this. They are still selling the VCR at their wholesale price of $69, and now a LOT of them are being sold, because of all the price-choppers who are killing the market price of the VCR, and their own businesses along with it. In a few months, the manufacturer will change the color of the VCR, slap a new model number on it, and the whole cycle will start all over again.
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that YOU can’t sell that VCR for a higher price than Chopper Bob. You can. What you have to realize is this:
The Internet is a very big place. Not everyone is going to FIND Chopper Bob’s site. In fact, the vast majority of shoppers WON’T find it.
Most shoppers are very leery of sites like Chopper Bob’s. People who get themselves involved in pricing wars tend to spend all of their time being mad at their competition, and to forget about customer service. You and I both know that we have paid a little more to purchase a product at a store we trust, rather than just going for the absolute rock-bottom price.
Thankfully, I see this type of situation mostly in just one area right now…consumer electronics. There are hundreds of thousands of other products that can be sold at very good profit margins without running into Chopper Bob and his buddies.
However, that does not mean that you can’t sell consumer electronics. You can sell anything you want to, no matter what the competition’s prices.
Sales is a bit of an art form. If selling something were simply a matter of the absolute lowest prices, Wal-Mart would be the only store on the face of the Earth.
Without going into too much detail, sales is a mixture of choosing the right product, or combination of products, for your web site. It’s presenting a clean, attractive, focused site. It’s giving the customer some little value-added bonus at your site. It’s providing the absolute best customer service that you can. All these things help a customer to trust you, and when they trust you they are willing to buy from you, even if in some cases, some of your prices are a bit more than they find on other sites.
We never sell the products on our Ecommerce sites at the lowest price, and we do just fine.
If you feel that you must Chop something, Chop your customer service response time. Chop a few kilobytes off your graphics, so your pages will load faster. Chop the “dead wood” out of your site by getting rid of products that are overexposed on the ‘Net.
Leave the price chopping to Bob and his buddies; they’re only hurting themselves, not you.
Author Bio
Chris Malta is the founder and CEO of Worldwide Brands , the Internet’s leading authorities on Product Sourcing for Home E-Biz, and the publishers of OneSource, the World’s largest Source of eCommerce wholesalers . Chris spent many years as a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, designing and building corporate and eCommerce server platforms, working for several large companies, and managing major installations for Fortune 100 businesses. With over thirty years experience in wholesale , retail, and entrepreneurial ventures, Chris was hand-picked by eBay Radio as their exclusive Product Sourcing Editor, and is responsible for managing the eBay Radio Resource Center. He co-writes and hosts Product Sourcing Radio, one of the top rated shows in the wsRadio Business Network, and has authored numerous books on E-Biz and product sourcing, including “What to Sell on eBay and Where to Get It,” published by McGraw-Hill.
best rated web hosts - News
|
Expert Web Hosting Service Plants a Forest In addition, we are continually upgrading our hardware platforms to be among the best in the industry. We are so confident you will love our web hosting and and more » |
|
Web Designing Company Pakistan We provide a complete web designing and Internet marketing service that includes web development, web hosting, cms web designing, custom web design and topseos.com Ranks the Best Web Design Firms for November 2009all 4 news articles » |
|
Leading Hosting Provider Hostway Drives Advanced Service and Global Footprint ... The company is one of the top five largest independent Web hosting companies in the world and the only truly global provider dedicated solely to Web hosting and more » |
|
Alentus Corporation Reports Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results Alentus Corporation is a next-generation web hosting and infrastructure company. We are a premier provider for both individuals and businesses looking for and more » |
|
You've been hacked. Now what? You've been hacked. Now what?(Editor's note: Chris Drake is CEO and founder of firehost, Inc., a secure Web hosting company. He submitted this story to venturebeat. |