Public staff profiles have become a prominent interface between universities and their stakeholders, and a calculative infrastructure that shapes what counts as valuable academic work. This updated study integrates a new cross university web audit comprising 300 public staff profiles (20 per university) across 15 Australian universities to examine how research, teaching, engagement and grant funding are represented. Centrally templated portals, Elsevier Pure and Symplectic Elements/Experts, standardise the display of outputs and projects and avoid page level headline metrics (e.g., H index) on individual public pages, instead encouraging identifier linking (ORCID/Scopus/Web of Science). Funding visibility is indirect, typically via scheme names and investigator roles rather than amounts or success rates. Teaching indicators remain weakly codified, while engagement fields exist but are unevenly populated. A subset of institutions operate bespoke/directories that yield greater variability and gaps. We interpret these choices as responsible by design attempts to resist reductive metricisation, but ones that also reproduce research–teaching asymmetries and shift reactivity toward narrative prestige cues (scheme acronyms, elite collaborations). We propose design and policy interventions that contextualise funding and normalise engagement without reintroducing problematic proxies, and we outline implications for governance and academic identity.