From: Andree Rathemacher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:02:38 -0400

While there are many ways to measure usage and many problems with each
(and questions about what usage "really means"), I assume that Ann was
asking about Counter-compliant stats, which is what most libraries and
publishers have been gathering for years.

Even if the Counter stats themselves have some problems, trends would
nonetheless be meaningful since there is a standard methodology for
collecting Counter-compliant usage statistics.

Andree Rathemacher
Univ of RI


On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:29 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Nawin <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:23:44 -0500
>
> With so many different ways to access content, what do the usage statistics
> that started this discussion thread include?  Obviously, the primary journal
> site, but what about aggregators, secondary collections, institutional
> repositories, authors' personal sites, and . . . .?  And, yes, A&I services
> and "to the degree that large-scale full-text searching and textmining is
> enabled."  In the age of information proliferation, Cliff Notes versions and
> discovery tools prevail!
>
> Nawin Gupta
> Informed Publishing Solutions, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Skib, Bryan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:30:40 +0000
>
> What counts as use?
>
> For reading, there would have to be leveling off unless campus enrollments
> and staffing increase. How much can one person consume in this manner?
> Expansion of access to alumni or the general public would of course change
> the demographics. Further, the max number of uses will be distributed across
> an ever larger body of materials, competing for attention. The percent of
> older material that continues to see use should be higher for digital than
> for print, given ease of access.
> Will aggregate collection management and demand-driven acquisition
> strategies reduce the portion of our collections that never see use?
> Will restrictions on resource sharing reduce the external use of what we
> choose to license?
>
> If the question is about use of online reference works and A&I services,
> users may well prefer other tools.
>
> Higher portions of the content might see a different form of use to the
> degree that large-scale full-text searching or textmining is enabled.
>
> My local picture strikes me as mixed, with continued (but slowing) growth in
> use -- and yet I hesitate to jump to conclusions since
> (overall) we are not always comparing apples to apples, or counting the same
> things in the same way.
>
> Bryan Skib
> Associate University Librarian for Collections
> 818 Hatcher Library
> University of Michigan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:24:35 -0400
>
> Dear All:  There's a discussion thread on the "lis-e-resources group"
> (UK) regarding an apparent decline in usage statistics for various
> electronic resources.  Not all resources data are down, but a large number
> are, it would seem.
>
> If your library has experienced this, to what do you attribute it?  What
> actions are being taken?  (cancellation, user education, implement discovery
> systems, etc?)
>
> See, my own fledgling theory all along has been that e-use has been hugely
> growing BUT that there are real limits.  The question is, when would we
> observe these?  I.e., as the number of e-resources online moves from zero
> (15 years ago) to 100% (let's also pretend that in 10 years everything that
> wants to be converted from print will have been converted, plus there will
> be all the new stuff), usage of resources will at least level off.
>
> It's routinely observed that some high percentage of print (academic)
> library resources are rarely if ever used (40%), and in a given year perhaps
> up to 80% of a research library's print resources aren't used.
> Are we heading in a parallel direction for electronic info?
>
> Perhaps librarians AND publishers would chime in here on this topic, for a
> breadth of experience.
>
> Thank you, Ann Okerson