May 7, 2014

 

Question

 

Joy Garretson (MS)

 

I’m about to send a lengthy message to one of my library directors about her counting methods. I know how to deal with most of the questions I have regarding her report, but I’m concerned about her database definitions. My main problem is that she counts Polaris (an ILS) as a database. This is not what the feds mean by databases, correct? I’m guessing that the “bibliographic records” part is where she justifies it, but I just wanted to check with everyone else before entering into the fray.

 

SDC Comments

 

Susan Mark (WY)

 

ILS is not a database. Nope.

 

Michael Golrick (LA)

 

…. no.  I guess it is a database, in a broad scope. Look at the language in the definition (page 52 this year, and right before the data elements 456-458). I know that language must have been written to keep libraries from counting the ILS as a database.

 

Terry Blauvelt (MO)

 

In reality, all ILS are databases, but they should in no circumstance be counted as such.

 

Colleen Hamer (MT)

 

Yes, and Licensed Databases  is a subsection to “Library Collection” which has in its overarching definition “Under this category, report only items the library has acquired as part of the collection, …” and the cost of the ILS would likely be under Operating Expenditure not Collection Expenditure.. another indicator for what could be in the collection #s.

 

Nicolle Steffen (CO)

 

I had a public library director ask the same question this year. She wanted to count her new ILS as a database because it had expanded content, including book and media reviews. I saw her point. However, I told her not to count the ILS as a database because, although it was “a collection of electronically stored data or unit records,” it wasn’t in keeping with the intent of the data element.

 

Joy Garretson (MS)

 

Thanks everyone!

 

Ann Reed (OR)

 

Lol, an ILS IS a Database by definition.  If we had meant to count only ones  with periodicals, we should have said so.  Mine is the minority opinion on this. 

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I don’t think we should count ILS as a database on the survey. But I think an ILS fits the definition almost perfectly. If we don’t want it included in the count, we should probably add some clarifications to that effect. I have done that on my survey.

 

Mary Ann Van Cura (MN)

 

Scott, I like your suggestion a lot. It would provide clarity

 

Joyce Chapman (NC)

 

And while we’re on the topic, does anyone find this question to be useful in some way, or was it historically useful? The info it conveys is kind of like me telling you how many Tupperware containers I have in my kitchen. It tells you nothing about how much stuff or what type of stuff is inside these containers. And we aren’t even reporting usage stats for them.

 

Nicolle Steffen (CO)

 

Agreed.

 

Kathy Sheppard (SC)

 

I have always wondered why we ask this.   Better data might be, how much or what % a library is spending on databases.  But because the State (at least our state) makes the really big database purchases, this seems kinda useless. 

 

The problem with reporting hits, here in SC again, is pulling down the reports.  We seem to have difficulty getting these figures annually, maybe because of a vacancy in that department.    I wonder if the usage count has been discussed in the past?

 

Laura Stone (AZ)

 

I agree with Joyce, as well. On a library-by-library level, I’m able to eyeball the data and get some idea of how much additional material is being purchased in different parts of our state. But the numbers are too squishy to track trends with, and they don’t roll up into statewide totals. Trying to get usage numbers is a real challenge. Even our State Library staff member who manages our statewide databases is continually frustrated at trying to figure out usage – patrons can come through a state portal or through their library site, and the data looks different in these different environs.

 

Michael Golrick

 

I am guessing that the reason for asking goes back to the days of the beginning of libraries offering the service, and pre-dates the statewide services that many states have.

 

I *do* ask my libraries to report the usage figures for the databases which they purchase. (I have the statewide numbers, library by library … well sort of.)

 

Nailing down database usage statistics is a morass. (And have you ever tried to nail down a morass?) What I would love is for Susan Hildreth, as head of the IMLS, to get all of the database vendors into one room, read them the riot act about how libraries of all types need to have numbers which can be compared between vendors, and not let them out until each and every one of them signs saying that they will regularly deliver library-by-library statistics which meet the NISO standards – which they helped write!

 

Until that happens, I have a mess of numbers for all the Louisiana libraries.

 

It occurs to me that this data element group (456 – 458) could be a candidate for deletion. I am going to be bold and suggest that to the LSWG – which includes researchers who presumably use our numbers.

 

Joyce Chapman (NC)

 

I second the motion. 

---

 

Mary Ann Van Cura (MN)

 

I’ll vote for that.

---

 

Susan Mark (WY)

 

I think this is one we might be collecting more on a philosophical basis than a practical one. After all, libraries are doing more with electronic resources. However, since we're not tracking actual use, just availability, couldn't we get the basic gist of the move to electronic resources by means of the electronic materials expenditures + the data in the state library survey?

 

Doing away with these would certainly eliminate the whole discussion of "what's a database?" and leave us free to wrestle with ebooks. At least with ebooks, we have some reasonable way of tracking use.

 

We have used the local database number before to justify the state databases -- eg. "X number of libraries are completely reliant on state databases." If we wanted to continue to be able to say that, we could do a state data element that's a simple yes/no instead of asking them for the number.

---

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I agree that we need to evaluate what we are counting. I’d say 80-90% of our libraries only have state supported databases. So, really, what is the point in counting that other than to over inflate the state wide numbers?

---

 

Mary Ann Van Cura (MN)

 

Those of you with years of experience may have another point of view of this.

 

To paint a picture of the services libraries are providing, I like the idea of showing:

•         number of electronic resources by format (databases, ebooks, etc.)
•         source of funding for the electronic resources by format (e.g. state, regional, local)
•         usage statistics (e.g. database usage, electronic resource circulation, etc. )

---

 

Cecilie Maynor (TN)

 

That is true for Tennessee as well. Very few libraries have locally supported data bases to report. We plug in the state number for each (so it is inflated and not very useful).

 

I agree that an evaluation of each question would be good.

---

 

Susan Mark (WY)

 

For our state-level reports, we don't sum the state databases, so there's no inflation on what we release. Nor do we sum the state-purchased e-content. We don't have control over how it's handled on the federal reports, though.

---

 

Nicolle Steffen (CO)

 

It’s a tricky issue. I think it’s important to capture the data associated with databases because they are an important library resources, but I’ve often questioned whether we are collecting the right data.

 

In Colorado, we have no “state” (457) funded databases. However, we do have a consortium  that negotiates a consortial purchase for libraries statewide. No state funding is put towards the consortial purchase, so the databases are reported under “Local/Other cooperative agreements” (456) making that data marginally useful locally.

---

 

Susan Mark (WY)

 

I concur, Nicolle, but that puts us up against another set of what may still be insurmountable problems. Even with the whole COUNTER thing, there still is not good consistency across the database stats we get back. So if we tried, say, to report out the number of sessions across all databases, it would be as if we counted all our oranges, sledgehammers and antique thimbles and said, "See! Here's how many oranges we have."

 

Is this even worth collecting at the national level if we have junk data? Looking at the supplemental tables for the FY11 preview, the totals have no relation to reality. We do not have 1,838 databases in this state.

 

Is there any way to recommend that IMLS find some other way to report e-resources out at the national level other than by totaling? Median resources per library by state & nationally, and also maybe by library size would make more sense to me. The value in e-resources is not the grand (inaccurate) total, but what is available to patrons at their local library.

---

 

Nicolle Steffen (CO)

 

Susan, for all the reasons you pointed out, I like your idea of reporting “Median resources per library by state & nationally.”

---

 

Joyce Chapman (NC)

 

Personally I would rather have a wildly inaccurate count of database usage than no count at all. And that’s exactly what we do with reference transactions. We all know they’re wildly inaccurate. Even if I can’t be 100% positive that the numbers are correct or libraries are counting the same way, I can be 100% positive that no count at all is more harmful than helpful to them in advocating for libraries, understanding their users, and identifying trends over time.

 

NC will probably start collecting it locally soon, but I’m sure in 5 years we’re all going to be cursing ourselves for not having started to collect this info at a  national level earlier. I think if we add some questions around database usage to the survey it provides a means to start forcing the vendors to provide the necessary statistics. So we’ll get a few years of crazy and missing data, then vendors pull their act together and we start getting something as consistently accurate as… reference transactions 

---

 

Susan Mark (WY)

 

I'm leaning toward agreement, Joyce, but the other factor to consider is that since so many databases are purchased at the state or consortial level, there may be literally no way to report this by individual library.

 

Looking at just one of our state databases -- Chilton's -- 1,793 of the 3,432 searches were done remotely -- so no idea what library the users were from. Not saying this to shoot it down, but I'm struggling with how we tease that out realistically?

 

That said, as I recall, most of my database stats are at site-level, so we could at least capture the number of people accessing them on-site, although I suspect many, if not most, in the public libraries are librarians looking up a reference answer.

 

This will also be less of a headache for me to deal with, because I don't have hundreds of libraries and who knows how many regional consortia buying databases.

 

Really not trying to shoot this down, because I think it's important. There are just a lot of issues to work through that I think we need to lay out here.

---

 

Nicolle Steffen (CO)

 

Joyce, your comparison to reference transactions is spot-on, IMHO.

 

We’ve had similar discussions here about counting database usage at the state level with all the pros and cons discussed ad infinitum, but no definitive solution, unfortunately. In fact, it looks like we’ll be reviving the discussion with public library directors at a meeting at the end of the month.

 

Like Susan, I’m not trying to shoot anything down, rather I’d like to see us find a reasonable methodology for counting databases and their use. But, then who isn’t looking for that?!

---

 

Robert Jones (IL)

 

I still think counting reference transactions should have went bye-bye but I’m in the minority on this one. The whole idea of accepting “inaccurate” data versus “no data” troubles me…..(and I’m from Illinois!).