|
|
|
As expected, our
data analysis answered some of our questions and raised important new ones:
|
|
|
|
For example, we
would like to better explore the relationship between Find Databases and Find
Articles when it comes to zero hits.
When a user tries a search in Find Databases and gets zero hits, what
then? Does he or she try the same
search in Find Articles? In order to
perform this kind of analysis, currently we would need to merge data from the
Apache logs and the ENCompass tables.
|
|
|
|
When a user gets
zero hits, what search terms are being used?
We can look at the actual query string from the ENCompass logs and
perform an analysis for complexity, i.e., length of string, and misspellings,
for both Find Articles and Find Databases.
For Find Databases, we can determine what databases are being
misspelled often and add metadata in the object record for those resources in
order to improve user access.
|
|
|
|
We know that
users are encountering search errors but have not delved into the error logs
themselves, which are not included within the ENCompass logs.
|
|
|
|
We have just
begun to scratch the surface with our analysis of Find it at Cornell or
LinkFinder Plus. We have started to
perform analysis on the Apache LFP file but have not analyzed data from the
LFP file within ENCompass. We want to
know if it would be possible to use usage data to track whether a user indeed
clicks on a full text link from Find it at Cornell when it is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|