Posted by gazjjohnson on 11 November, 2010
I’ve oft quoted that since our repository began that at least 5 accesses have been with the Nintendo Wii. I had a meeting this afternoon to talk open access and educational resources with the delightful Terese Bird of the BDRA (on Project SPIDER business), and the topic came up. She posed the question about m-devices, and how often they were accessing the LRA’s resources. Gotta confess I had no idea, but I went away to find out. The results are below (for the last year since 11/10/2009 to date)
O/s of people accessing the LRA (Nov 09-Nov 10)
- Windows 90.57%
- Macintosh 7.15%
- Linux 1.57%
- iPhone 0.26%
- (not set) 0.16%
- iPad 0.09%
- iPod 0.06%
- Android 0.04%
- SymbianOS 0.03%
- BlackBerry 0.02%
Well colour me not very surprised that the vast amount of accesses are via Windows PCs (although I’d be interested to know how that Windows/Apple split matches up against supposed market shares in academia!). M-devices are, as I expected, fairly low (around 0.5% in total).
O/s of people accessing the LRA (Nov 08-Nov 09)
- Windows 91.61%
- Macintosh 6.69%
- Linux 1.29%
- (not set) 0.23%
- iPhone 0.09%
- iPod 0.04%
- SunOS 0.02%
- SymbianOS 0.01%
- BlackBerry 0.01%
- Android > 0.00%
Now when you compare it with 2008-9 figures over the same period you get ~0.15%, so the latest figure is a tripling of access by mobile devices in a single year. What do I expect to see by this time in 2011? Well getting on for around 2% – or a much more dramatic rise? I suspect the latter as iPads and the like make their way out into the market more. Which means in terms of developing our repository, the use of m-devices needs to be a consideration – not an overwhelming one yet, but certainly one that we take very seriously.
Posted in Leicester Research Archive | Tagged: access, information, m-devices, mobile devices, mobiles, repository, roaming, stats | Leave a Comment »
Posted by gazjjohnson on 2 November, 2010
Here are the results of the most regularly accessed items in the LRA for the month of October.
- Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change Sandell, Richard (Article)
- Advanced control of photovoltaic converters Liu, Ying (Thesis)
- Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care Pitchforth, Emma et al (Article)
- Female Fandom in an English ‘Sports City’: A sociological study of female spectating and consumption around sport Pope, Stacey Elizabeth (Thesis)
- The Impact of Labour Turnover: Theory and Evidence from UK Micro-Data Garino, Gaia et al (Report)
- Lead-free soldering alloys: microstructure optimization for electronic applications Belyakov, Sergey (Thesis)
- “There’s a coat peg with his name on it”: investigating the training implications to support the inclusion of pre-school children with special educational needs Harwood, Zoe (Thesis)
- Profcasting: a pilot study and guidelines for integrating podcasts in a blended learning environment Edirisingha, Palitha et al (Article)
- Thomas C. Schelling’s psychological decision theory: Introduction to a special issue Colman, Andrew M. (Article)
- A Study of Solidification Structure Evolution during Investment Casting of Ni-based Superalloy for Aero-Engine Turbine Blades. Dai, Huijuan (Thesis)
- Teaching presentation skills to undergraduates: Students’ evaluations of a workshop course Colman, Andrew M. (Article) (10th equal)
Theses continue to be a richly accessed resource, but for the first time in a few months we’ve seen a lot of new items coming to the top of the heap; only three of this month’s top ten were in last month’s list. In terms of countries of by levels of access, very little change – although the number 10 slot has changed for a new country this month (it was Malaysia last month).
- United Kingdom
- United States
Posted in Leicester Research Archive | Tagged: lra, october, repositories, statistics, stats, usage | Leave a Comment »
Posted by gazjjohnson on 6 May, 2009
It’s been a while since I did one of these, but following last month’s news I thought it might be interesting to see how the traffic to this blog is doing.
Obviously these are non-disambiguated, and for all we know are the same person or crawler. But as a useful guide to the hit-rate for this site I wonder how they stack up against the library pages, and perhaps more importantly for the future – against the SM@LL site?
Posted in Blog admin | Tagged: blogging, readership, stats | Leave a Comment »
Posted by gazjjohnson on 3 February, 2009
Just thought I’d recap on where we are with blog stats. We’re getting a healthy, if not enormous, level of hittage.
- Jul 08 – 195
- Aug 08 – 144
- Sept 08 – 276
- Oct 08 – 145
- Nov 08 – 406
- Dec 08 – 653
- Jan 09 – 746
- Feb 09 – 79
Obviously Feb is only three days old, but this does give us a clear upward trend. Taking it as average hits/day
- Jul 08 – 6.3
- Aug 08 – 4.6
- Sept 08 – 9.2
- Oct 08 – 4.7
- Nov 08 – 13.5
- Dec 08 – 21.1
- Jan 09 – 24.1
- Feb 09 – 26.3
It looks like Feb is continuing the trend upwards. I’m especially proud of the December bump, considering we had far fewer posts in December than normal and the long Christmas break. Seems people were still coming on by to read the site. Long may it continue.
Posted in Blog admin | Tagged: statistics, stats | 3 Comments »
Posted by gazjjohnson on 27 January, 2009
Well according to this site, the LRA ranks 148th in the world of institutional repositories overall. It gives stats on size (222nd), visibility (186th), rich files (125th) and Scholar (125th). We’re 15th in the UK. Digging into the back files for the site I see they’ve calculated these figures as follows:
- Size (S). Number of pages recovered from the four largest engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.
- Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search and Exalead.
- Rich Files (R). Only the number of text files in Acrobat format (.pdf) extracted from Google and Yahoo are considered.
- Scholar (Sc). Using Google Scholar database we calculate the mean of the normalised total number of papers and those (recent papers) published between 2001 and 2008.
IMHO I might argue that I don’t agree with how they calculate their metrics – while only 20% of the overall figure is made up from size, repositories that are stuffed full of metadata get an especial boost to the top. Nor does it account for how useful the rich files are – a repository filled with images isn’t as rich as one storing research articles, books and data. Quality over quantity if you ask me!
But it’s another site for the doubtless many metrics fans across the UK HEI scene. In case you’re wondering the site is based in Spain at the Cybermetrics Lab (research group) at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC).
Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access | Tagged: metrics, ranking, repositories, stats | Leave a Comment »