Understanding the Numbers: Successful Retrievals of Electronic Information on the Public Library Annual Report, and today's post is about how BadgerLink has moved this forward at a state-level.
Here's a quick recap.
- Database usage has been historically tracked by sessions or searches. However, these metrics are either no longer supported by major vendors, or not seen as valid.
- We've had access to other metrics since 2014 but weren't sure exactly what to do with them.
- The new Annual Report requirement was introduced in 2016.
Metrics used to determine “successful retrieval of electronic information”
EBSCO, Gale, TeachingBooks
(COUNTER 4 Database Report 1)
Documents & Media (accessed)
Total # of Resources (accessed)
Wisconsin Newspaper Association
I know what you're thinking, you said searches aren't valid! Again, not perfect, but at least consistent across the years. And these are regular searches, meaning deliberately performed by the user, not a federated search engine or discovery layer.
|BadgerLink Retrievals 2014-2016|
According to the results, we've seen a gradual increase in retrievals since 2014. We'll use this data, alongside vendor-specific reports and user feedback, to tell the BadgerLink story.
More changes on the horizon
COUNTER, the non-profit organization that produces the Code of Practice that enables publishers and vendors to report usage of their electronic resources in a consistent way, is currently working on a Release 5, slated for publication in July 2017, with full implementation by January 2019. This release promises to fix inconsistencies in reports, metric types and formats, and seeks a balance between changing needs and reducing complexity. As this pans out, we'll map current Release 4 metrics to Release 5 for our COUNTER-compliant BadgerLink vendors.
If you are interested in learning more or following along:
Elizabeth Neuman, Resources for Libraries & Lifelong Learning