Original Question, SDC Comments, IMLS Comment (chronological order)

Original Question (3/8/11):

Edie Huffman (IN)

Question to Edie from a library director:

A “how-do-you-count” question:

We started an online book discussion last month … I’m just not sure how to count it.  I’m thinking: 1 program; number of attendees are more difficult, because a person may actually follow the discussion, but not comment.

We are tracking the webpage for hits, so that will be counted as well. Thoughts?

Edie:  

Dear colleagues:

Any thoughts?  Surely they have to sign in somehow? 

_____________________

IMLS Response (Carlos Manjarrez)

IMLS would recommend using a comparable participation standard for remote programs as is used for physical programs.  For physical programs merely showing up is all that is needed to count an attendee.  For example, no verbal exchange from the child is required for a little one to be counted as a children’s story hour participant. 

In the case presented below, we would argue that the number of unique web hits is the most comparable statistic to physical program attendees, rather than participation via a comment or post. 

Edie, is this number readily available to folks at the Adams Public Library System?

_______________________________

SDC Comments:

Edie Huffman (IN):

Carlos and all:

They seem to think the number is available.  However, Peter Haxton suggested that the number of unique web hits might be likened to people poking their heads in the door, and that seems a reasonable analogy to me.  I imagine they have to sign in with library card or something, so, if that is the case, I would rather go with sign-ins than unique web hits.

_______________________

Rob Geiszler (VT)

Carlos makes an important point.  Probably in your own experience, as well, you rarely “participate” by making any comments or posting.  The vast majority of people - and I’m one - are “lurkers,” but they’re definitely attendees.

_________________________________

Bruce Pomerantz (MN)

I just received a request from our largest library to create a new outlet designation for an online branch. 

Our online services unit now conducts programs that take place exclusively online, we have staff in our online services department that provide email and chat reference services, and now with downloadable content, we have circulation that takes place entirely outside of a physical unit. We need a place to be able to measure and report that activity.

For 2011, I intend to create the supplemental services outlet category for Minnesota that I submitted as a data element at the 2010 conference. I'm also going to re-submit the concept at the 2011 conference.  We're overlooking an important trend if we lump all this activity as if it's a branch activity. I do not think that people from two of three outlets driving to a third outlet where an activity is taking place is analogous to an online meeting. These are new ways of providing services and we shouldn't use a Procrustean model to count them.  

_________________________________

Ira Bray (CA)

In California we have a Virtual Visits item on our survey, for FY 2009-10 we had 137 of 181 libraries respond, here's the definition:

Virtual visits to the library (website or catalog). Virtual visits include a user’s request of the library web site or catalog from outside the library building regardless of the number of pages or elements viewed. This statistic is the equivalent of a session for a library's website. Exclude virtual visits from within the library, from robot or spider crawls and from page reloads.

Virtual visits is one of the recommended e-metrics in the ARL publication Measures for Electronic Resources (E-METRICS)

see: http://www.arl.org/stats/initiatives/emetrics/index.shtml for the report and other resources. Certainly there are challenges to the collection and definition of  "session", here is some additional commentary:

 The recommendation in the ARL E-Metrics Phase II Report and the default in some Web transaction analysis software define a session based on a 30-minute gap of inactivity between transactions from a particular IP address.⁴ Compiling a composite measure of traditional gate counts and virtual visits introduces a further complication, because virtual visits from IP addresses within the library must be removed from the total count of virtual visits to avoid double counting patrons who enter the physical library and use library computers to access digital resources.

from a report of the Council on Library and Information Resources, pub105 Usage and Usability Assessment: Library Practices and Concerns  by Denise Troll Covey. January 2002.

see:  http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/reports.html