<p>Faculty evaluation increasingly draws on public digital traces and bibliometric indicators, but these measures are not discipline-neutral proxies for scholarly quality. This study examines disciplinary variation in platform-mediated visibility and bibliometric standing among 250 publicly identifiable, research-active faculty members affiliated with Egyptian public universities. Using a cross-sectional public-profile dataset, the analysis considered Google Scholar and ResearchGate profile presence, X/Twitter adoption, personal website or blog presence, ResearchGate Research Interest (RI) Score, X/Twitter follower counts among account holders, Google Scholar publication counts, Google Scholar citation totals, and Google Scholar h-index values. The revised analysis clarifies that the sample is purposive and digitally visible rather than population-representative. Science faculty were more visible than Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (AHSS) faculty within the selected indicator systems, particularly in ResearchGate presence, RI Score, follower counts among X/Twitter users, publications, citations, and h-index. Career age, operationalized as bibliometric career age, did not differ significantly by cluster. RI Score was extremely strongly aligned with conventional bibliometric indicators, indicating metric overlap and a risk of double counting rather than independent evidence of scholarly quality. X/Twitter visibility required separating platform adoption from audience size: account presence did not differ significantly by discipline, but Science account holders had larger follower counts. The study argues that digital and bibliometric indicators may inform faculty evaluation only when interpreted as partial, situated, and discipline-sensitive signals, and only when their provenance, missingness, and disciplinary limits are made explicit.</p>