Well, I can definitely say that 93% of searches were not successful. We
should be so lucky. I've added no hits percentages to
<http://lib.tamu.edu/directory/bponsfor/opac-usage-stats>. The most
relevant results are:
Subject headings keyword - 40.31% resulted in no hits
Journal title keyword - 37.41% resulted in no hits
Expert keyword - 31.98%
Title keyword - 31.51%
Journal title starts with - 28.42%
Title starts with - 25.26%
Author keyword - 25.12%
Keyword - 20.53%
The various browse searches, since they don't actually bring up bib
records, don't result in hits (or no hits, for that matter).
Obviously, not all "no hits" searches are not failures - we may not
have the title. But we are an ARL library; we're going to have it an
awful lot of the time. I have started looking at the title searches to
see what percentage of searches that result in no hits are for titles we
actually do have. Extremely rough data indicates that we actually have
the title about 40% of the time. So we're giving a false negative way
too close to half the time for my comfort.
One question is then, what do people do when their search results in no
hits? From just browsing through the logs, I can say that some people
just keep retrying until they find something they like, but I don't have
numbers on that yet. Nor do I have numbers on how many people just give
up and move on.
The next question is why do people get "no hits" when we have the book?
Early research based just on title searches indicates:
* spelling (Texans apparently can't pronounce da Vinci, much less spell
it), plurals, verb tenses, and related issues
* things we have but don't include in the catalog - ERIC documents,
online journals from aggregators, etc.
* things we have but don't index at the level they're searching -
journal articles, chapter titles, etc.
* not understanding the rules - initial articles, including journal
volume or conference date in a title search, etc.
Which leads to the real money question - will whatever next gen catalog
that comes along fix any/all of the above?
Bennett
>>> On 2/7/2008 at 2:43 AM, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
wrote:
>> I put together the first search statistics as part of an internal
discussion
> on
>> how often people change the default search - about 65% of the time -
and what
>> they change the search to.
>>
>> I've added overall search statistics to
>> <http://lib.tamu.edu/directory/bponsfor/opac-usage-stats/> and
annotated
>> the files with some notes about what those searches are supposed to
be doing
>> (as well as where the stats have problems). These statistics, btw,
>> are just a 10 day (more or less) sample from last fall.
>>
>> As to the question of how often people click on a link in a bib
record, the
>> answer is less than 7% overall. And, interestingly, the public
more
>> than library people.
>
> Thanks so much for adding this information--although I confess I find
the
> results dismaying. As I mentioned, the catalog was designed to allow
for
> keyword searching followed by browsing, e.g. I find one book on Roman
history
> during the time of Cicero with the heading Rome--History--Republic
[date], and I
> should be interested in all books with that topic (and I have always
believed
> that these results could be displayed and sorted in all kinds of
interesting
> ways that are not done today).
>
> But all this assumes that people will click on the heading and it
appears
> that people mostly do not. Therefore, everything after that goes down
the
> drain. Does this fall in with statistics from other institutions as
well?
>
> Even the FRBR generic user tasks (which are not very specific):
> -- to find entities that correspond to the user’s stated search
criteria
> (i.e., to locate either a single entity or a set of entities in a
file or
> database as the result of a search using an attribute or relationship
of the
> entity);
> Â -- to identify an entity (i.e., to confirm that the entity
described
> corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or
more
> entities with similar characteristics);
>  -- to select an entity that is appropriate to the user’s needs
(i.e., to
> choose an entity that meets the user’s requirements with respect to
> content, physical format, etc., or to reject an entity as being
inappropriate
> to the user’s needs);
> Â -- to acquire or obtain access to the entity described (i.e., to
acquire an
> entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity
electronically
> through an online connection to a remote computer).
>
> sort of imply that people will look for groups of materials. So,
either we
> must assume in your case e.g. that 93% of the searches were
successful and
> retrieved what people wanted (i.e. 7% of heading searches coming from
a click
> inside the bib record would assume that people wanted something
more). Or,
> that the users did not click on the headings and just did an entirely
new
> search. In the first case (93% success rate), this does not ring at
all true
> to me since searching catalogs is so difficult, and the second case
(making
> entirely new searches and not clicking on the headings) is extremely
> dismaying.
>
> The fact that the public uses browse more than staff does not
particularly
> surprise me. I would guess that staff members who are managing the
collection
> are looking more for specific items than the public who are mostly
looking
> for groups of materials.
>
> Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Feb 07 2008 - 18:48:35 EST