After a long dark hiatus, I guess I’ll try using this blog as a place to consider the research guide I agreed to adopt.
That guide (guides.ccclib.org/general) is meant to focus on “General Research”–a term that doesn’t convey to me a lot of detailed meaning. It is broad enough that I could take it in a number of divergent directions.
Those who originally created it focused on electronic data resources–databases, sources of raw statistical data, etc.–that are available on the library’s website.
My initial modifications reflect my academic background.
- I added links to online resources and tools to help find and organize information. Gathering and organizing information means more than just searching Google.
- I added links to pages that discuss how to construct online searches that will achieve the searcher’s intended results. I think that most users can benefit from having access to this kind of information.
- I added links to pages on research methods. Although they are specialized, I think they can be useful to students who have to write research papers in high school and college.
I have since examined the use statistics for the guide, and I have found that overwhelmingly, users have selected only a few items on my guide. Of the 800 or so views of the initial page, about 60% clicked on a link they found there. The remaining viewers just went away again.
Of the secondary click,the breakdown for links with more than 10 clicks was this:
| Link | Count | PCT |
|---|---|---|
| General Onefile | 203 | 39.11% |
| Opposing Viewpoints | 81 | 15.61% |
| Conducting Research | 41 | 7.90% |
| General Reference Center Gold | 37 | 7.13% |
| Statistical Data Sources | 27 | 5.20% |
| Power Search | 23 | 4.43% |
| ReferenceUSA | 21 | 4.05% |
| National Weather Service | 18 | 3.47% |
| WhichSearch | 12 | 2.31% |
What I am trying to decide is whether this dataset offers any insight on the direction to take the guide. It makes sense that a lot of people go to General Onefile and Opposing Viewpoints, and of course I’ll keep those.
But what about all those links with one or two clicks? Should they go, or can the users be induced to click these links as well if the pages were built differently?
What does it mean that the National Weather Service ranks so highly? Should I add local weather and events as a topic of “research”?
I welcome comments.
7 responses so far ↓
librarypi // February 6, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I assume the link stats you list are straight number of hits; granting that the numbers will be skewed by the nature of library computers (one patron or staff member on three different machines at three different times = three “unique users”) is there a way to find the number of unique users who clicked through these links? If one person who likes to use our website has a regular habit of using this “path” to the National Weather Service site, for instance, that might help to explain its apparent popularity. (Sort of like my habitual path to USPS zip code lookup is to Google “Zip+4″ — it works, so I haven’t bothered updating my habit to a more direct path.)
That’s just an example, of course; the main reason I ask is my general assumption that more data is always better.
sunfish62 // February 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Yes, the stats are straight-up click counts. Given the stateless nature of the HTML protocol, there is little I can do to determine the kinds of detail you’re mentioning. It’s actually a big problem with any set of HTML stats.
Honestly, there isn’t a lot of data to work with in the first place (800 hits for a month is pathetic, really), so all I really think I can do is get a sense of general trend. That is, most of the users seem to get to General OneFile and Opposing Viewpoints, so what does that mean?
These are two of the main databases I recommend to high schoolers working on their senior projects, so should I direct the guide toward that type of user? What links might appeal to other researchers?
librarypi // February 8, 2009 at 3:21 pm
True; 800 hits isn’t much of a sample size. An 80% click-through rate actually seems pretty good to me though — most people who visit the site are finding either what they’re looking for or something that interests them — so the present goal might be to increase “repeat business” and word-of-mouth recommendations to hopefully increase total traffic. (Maybe obvious without my saying it, but still…)
How much control do you have over the way the page is organized? Can you change the size of the sidebars (or eliminate one or more, as appears to have been done under “Conducting Research” and “Statistical Data Sources”)?
Another note on layout: I’d consider moving the dictionary tool elsewhere on the page; it seems like it’s designed for a wider space (observe how words with multiple definitions are displayed, and the size of the “orig” and “more..!” text and link at the bottom) and its current location might be used to “push” useful but lesser-known databases or links, perhaps with descriptors in bold (e.g. “Search People & Businesses” for Reference USA).
sunfish62 // February 9, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Actually, the click-through rate is more like 60%; the percentages in the table above are for the smaller subset of secondary clicks, which was about 500.
As for layout, I have a good bit of control on that; the pages you mention are ones that I set up with fewer columns in them. I have also moved the dictionary widget to the bottom of the middle column. I will consider removing it altogether.
It is my intention to strip out substantial pieces of the guide, since they don’t get much use. My goal is to figure out which pieces really aren’t necessary here, and which ones should be kept (even if they aren’t getting used at this time). My hope is that by removing some of the clutter, the remaining items will garner more attention.
runnrwc // February 10, 2009 at 2:15 pm
David,
All I can speak to is my experience, and our users/customers aren’t interested in structured search techniques. A few hints on refining a Google search may be in order, and I would also recommend links to Yahoo and maybe one or two other search engines.
Also, I think this might be a good area to address common consumer-type issues. For examples, links to the California Vehicle Code and a link to the Bureau of Automotive Repair.
Donna's Blog // February 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm
FYI, there is a brand new guide for Consumers; check it out.
Continuing the discussion « Sunfish62 Rantings // February 11, 2009 at 8:36 pm
[...] About ← It’s Alive! [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.