In an article I did in the Journal of Economic Perspectives on rankings, I said that rankings had been beaten to death, and it was time to drop them. It didn't help. The reality is that rankings will take place no matter what we say. So we will have to live with them. To fight them one has to develop alternative rankings, and methods of showing that the rankings provide little to no information that people didn't already know. That's what I'm trying to do now. In a paper that alas is still in progress, "Who's Better: US or European Economics?" I show that the proxies they use (journal articles) are only a small portion of economists' total output (which includes teaching, other research, and service), (I estimate 20%) and that emphasis in one reduces emphasis in the others, so the probability of the rankings carrying through is exceedingly small, even if there is positive correlation with other activities. I fault all the rankings producers for not making clear what portion of economists' output they think they are ranking, and far too often jumping from a ranking of journal article publication to a ranking of economists. The result I come to is that we cannot say whose better--Imagine that. David Colander