Looking at job-candidate websites?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have two questions about the role of personal websites in the job application process.

1. What are some reasons search committee members might visit an applicant's webpage?
I have a hidden, password-protected page on my website that contains all my application materials and a few additional ones. I put the address and password in my cover letters. Now that most of my applications are in, I see that people from regions I applied in are visiting my webpage, but they are not using this page. Instead, they are just browsing the website in general. Most frequently, they spend a minute or less on my homepage and research page. Sometimes it's less than 30 seconds and just my homepage. But I'm not sure what information they are looking for in these pages, since all of it is predictably contained in my dossier. The only thing I can think of is that the website gives a vibe of who the candidate is, or maybe they just want to see a photo?

2. In what stage of the process do search committees look at the candidates' websites?
For example, is it when they go through the batch to make the initial cut? It is when they decide on the long list? I'm sure there's a lot of variation, but I wonder if there are some commonalities. I'm curious because of a pattern I see on my website. Sometimes there is a burst of visitors from a certain place for a few days and then they stop vising my website. Could this be interpreted as some vague indication that there was a discussion of my dossier? If I don't hear from that department in the following weeks and they have stopped visiting my website, should I take it as some sort of signal that my dossier is no longer considered? On the one hand, intuitively, it does seem to me like a sign that they lost interest. On the other hand, this happened to me with several departments and I haven't seen reports that any of them invited people for interviews or any updates about their searches.

Another reader submitting the following reply:

I think you are overthinking this way too much. This is the sort of worrying that leads to serious anxiety around the job market. Your job is to submit an application. Then leave it to the committee to do their work. Some people will look at your webpage and some won't. The one case I remember most vividly is a very unaccomplished colleague trolling around looking for dirt on an application ... and finding it! So just keep the content professional.

In one sense (as I explain below), I think the OP probably is overthinking things. But as the follow-up comment notes, one reason search committee members may visit a candidate's website is to simply see how professional and 'put together' a candidate is. So, I think it is important to reflect a bit on why search committee member might visit candidate websites.

In general, I guess I'm inclined to say that a lot of search committee members may not even have a clear idea why they are visiting a candidate's website. In my own case, I think I visited candidate's websites simply because I was interested in their candidacy and wanted to see if there is anything on their website that might make me more or less interested in them. In terms of when search committee members choose to visit, I imagine that it could happen at any stage of the process: when considering applications, before or after first-round interviews, or before or after campus visits. Generally speaking, I doubt that many search committees actually discuss websites, unless they find something very striking, such as really interesting additional content (some candidates do public philosophy, etc.) or something concerning. I also doubt there is much correlation between website visits and whether a candidate is still under serious consideration. For example, I might visit a candidate's webpage very early on, be very interested in them in general, and not visit their website again because I have it firmly decided in my mind that I want to interview them, invite them to campus, or (in the final stage of deliberations) extend an offer. 

In any case, what I do agree with the follow-up comment on is that these questions probably aren't worth stressing over. The best thing to do, I think, is have a nicely put together website that reflects well on you, keep it updated, and don't fuss over who does or doesn't visit it. I have to confess: I incessantly checked who visited my website for several years when I was a job-candidate, and then gave it up. Seeing cities of who visited often got my hopes up over nothing, and so on. I eventually learned to spend my time on better things: on doing the work I needed to do (publish, teach) and otherwise try to separate myself from job-market stresses as far as possible (though I know it's tough!).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[checking website hits is bad]

I have also had the (bad) habit of checking website visits, and generally it's only served to get my hopes up and make me anxious. I once saw a flurry of visits from the domain of a department where I had applied, only to find later that I didn't get an interview. Another time I saw the same thing, and I did get the interview - but not the job. And I've gotten interviews from places that apparently never visited my website once (not to mention departments that have neither interviewed me nor visited my website). There is no discernable pattern.
Nor have I learnt my lesson: after years on the market, checking my website hits and various other job-market related pages (including this one) has become a kind of obsessive compulsion for me, something I do almost without thinking. I think it's because there is so much uncertainty in this process, and so I find myself clinging to whatever tiny extra bits of information I can get my hands on, whether it's website hits, downloads on philpapers, updates to job-market wikis, or even just checking email. It's probably the number one way that being on the job market has negatively affected my mental health. I really wish I had never started this habit, because it's become very hard to break.

[Former Chair]

I agree, this is definitely not worth stressing over. It's impossible to determine what the visits might mean.

I've looked at websites a few times. Typically I go to a website when someone mentions an interesting paper or class assignment and I want to download it and learn more. More often than not, this is for personal-professional reasons. The paper might be related to my research or teaching responsibilities, or I may want to borrow the assignment for use in my own classes. This counts in a candidate's favor, of course. But as Marcus says, this doesn't mean the candidate is under serious consideration then or later, as there are always a lot of other factors in play, too.

Sometimes site visits are pretty arbitrary. Several years ago, I was a grad student rep on a tenure stream search committee. One candidate under serious consideration got a lot of visits to her site because of her dogs. She was already a top candidate, and then one committee member let us know that there were several pics of her dogs on her website. Everyone wanted a look at that point.

[P]

One reason to look at a website is to find a picture of the candidate to discern whether they are visibly a minority (in philosophy that also includes women). There is so much pressure to increase diversity in hiring, yet search committees do not get access to candidate self-reporting on the issue. This leaves search committees in a bind: interview a more diverse pool of candidates without being given information on who qualifies as fitting this pool. It would be interesting to discuss this more, and my thoughts on this are far from established, but I recognize that this can be one reason to visit a candidates website. Otherwise (besides making inferences from names), it is not clear how a search committee can be sure to diversify its pool of interviewees.

[Mike Titelbaum]

Here's another, very stupid reason why I might visit a candidate's website: I'm terrible about remembering names, and I might see on your cv that we attended the same conference, so I might go look at your picture to try to remember any interactions I had with you.
Which is all just to reinforce the comments above that you shouldn't read too much into these things. The job market process is incredibly hard on people: It's a high-pressure, high-stakes situation over which you have little control and during which you receive little information. I obsessed just as much as everyone else when I was on the market. But there's always hope you can be better than I was!