Friday, March 9, 2012

The Worst Got Worse

Has anyone checked out the APA website lately? Given its extraordinary uselessness, I'd stopped visiting it. But I made the mistake this morning of checking it out.

It has gotten worse. They've made JFP even harder to find, the organization is even more unwieldy, the design is even more incompetent, and the entire site is utterly clunky.

Here's a hypothesis. If a medium-sized number of members were to coordinate a day and time to login all at once, the site would surely crash.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, assuming that by "medium sized" you mean "three."

Anonymous said...

For the first time since I was in graduate school (which is longer ago than I like to recall) I let my APA membership lapse. And I have likewise heard from colleagues that they are no longer members either. Mine was a pure cost-benefit analysis: I just did not see what I got in return for my dues. I do not attend the meetings regularly, and I would then just be better off paying the non-member registration.

anonymouse said...

Wow. I haven't yet found the JFP. I did a search in their little search engine and the slick new Web "only" search engine came out on top. It's awesome. Everyone should try it (you have to log in): http://www.apaonline.org/APAOnline/Members_Only/JFP/Web_Only_Ads/Volume_193_Web-Only_Ads.aspx

Anonymous said...

11:11 = APA tool

anonymouse said...

8:02: Got me. Good catch.

Anonymous said...

Sprios, why the hell don't you quit APA and organize a serious boycott of it? Seriously. Sticking with it is irrational.

Anonymous said...

It is also irrational to suppose that one person can organize a boycott of a national philosophy organization.

Glaucon said...

Everybody knows it'd be better if it blew up
Everybody knows that the website sucks
Everybody who visits it probably threw up
Everybody knows the management's incompetent fucks
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Anonymous said...

It's really not that hard to find the JFP. Members Only, Publications, Bam.

I agree that the APA website is awful, that they're awful, etc., but seriously, finding the JFP is not hard and may even actually be more intuitive now than it was before.

Of course, if you could just click on "JFP" upon signing in, that would be even better. But that makes too much sense.

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't Leiter commented on the Cambridge philosopher child porn conviction? It seems like very important information for propective students.

Anonymous said...

Anoymous 3:08: possibly because the philosopher is *ex* Cambridge? Why would gossip be relevant for prospective students?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:48:

That is not gossip. This guy was convicted, though he had retired seven or eight months prior. Also, during his time on the faculty, he provided online reviews of prostitutes on behalf of an escort service (which provided these women in exchange for free and positive reviews). The latter incident resulted in an eight month suspension from teaching.

More information here: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/uncategorized/cambridge-university-silent-over-pervert-don/

Anonymous said...

The entire site is also inaccessible if you use Safari--there's just an error message if you try to navigate to the main page. I called the APA to let them know, and the response was basically "we know, use something else."

Anonymous said...

Gossip can be true, what makes it gossip is that it is lurid details about someone's personal life, of absolutely no relevance--the guy si retired.

Anonymous said...

Well, I am appalled how Cambridge have handled the situation. He just gave a talk there in 2011 after his child porn arrest!

Anonymous said...

Right 2.29. How dare Cambridge apply the presumption of innocence. Think of all the children who regularly attend Cambridgr colloquial.

Anonymous said...

When I first read the comment about the Cambridge child porn don, I thought that this was a reference to Tibor Fischer's *The Thought Gang*. Life imitates art, indeed!

Anonymous said...

3:06 - presumption of innocence is a principle which applies to courts.

It's hard to see why it should bar philosophy departments from retracting invitations to dons previously found to have slept with prostitutes in teaching rooms, and now arrested on child pornography charges.

Anonymous said...

Why is it bad to use a service in return for providing positive reviews? Is this something about consumer advocacy?

Anonymous said...

10.59: of course it doesn't debar philosphy departments from retracting invitations. But 2.29 claimed that retraction was *required*. Presumption of innocence has a moral counterpart, making this requirement implausible.

Anonymous said...

When/where did 2:29 claim the retraction was "required"?

Anonymous said...

5.06: 2.29 is "appaled how Cambridge handled the situation"; viz, that he gave a talk there after arrest. Now how can we interpret that as *not* saying that retraction was required?

Anonymous said...

3:13: But the presumption of innocence just doesn't hold here - and you'd need to spell out exactly what moral counterpart you think does apply, as I just can't see any plausible one - the straightforward corresponding moral principle would disbar retracting the invitation, but this is permissible.

Further, In this case we've got two pretty good bits of evidence that make it reasonable to conclude it is likely that the guy did what he was arrested for - (i) he was charged for it, and (ii) he has been caught up to no good in the past. That's not enough for a court, but is enough for us. I can see how someone could reasonably think that makes non-retraction reprehensible.

Anonymous said...

5.47. wrote:

"Further, In this case we've got two pretty good bits of evidence that make it reasonable to conclude it is likely that the guy did what he was arrested for - (i) he was charged for it, and (ii) he has been caught up to no good in the past. That's not enough for a court, but is enough for us. I can see how someone could reasonably think that makes non-retraction reprehensible".

Wow, you really don't get this presumption of innocence thing, do you?

Anonymous said...

"Wow, you really don't get this presumption of innocence thing, do you"

Wow, you really don't get this "we aren't in court" thing, do you?

Anonymous said...

9.58 "Wow, you really don't get this "we aren't in court" thing, do you?"

Wow, you really don't get the distinction between a purely procedural rule and a morally justified rule, do you?

Anonymous said...

Huh?
I think you've missed the point. Some of us are expressing our doubt that there is any morally justified presumption of innocence outside of court. If you have a justification, by all means present it!

Anonymous said...

The news report says that the images were between levels 1 and 5 on the COPINE scale. Calling that "child porn" is a distortion.
Anyway, WTF has this got to with JFP?

Bryan said...

Just to verify the obvious, checking their xhtml markup (on 03/24/12) returns 85 errors and 33 warnings: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apaonline.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

Fritz J. McDonald said...

Worth noting re: the APA: there is a 9AM session at the Pacific in Seattle yet onsite registration does not open until noon. This would not be an issue if the APA did not give participants session locations until registration. Also, we did receive a badge checking warning.

I registered ahead, but still...