Can I throw in a curveball for call #2.

Can the web log analysis tool be reinvented as something like this.

A javascript embed into the homepage of the site, which does some
google analytics stuff off to a big server
Ditto ............................ on a search results page of the site
Ditto ............................ on an item page

This way, you could effectively do the web log analysis live, and also
build a tonne of other services off it.

I would imagine this would also be quite paradata generating.

I am now wondering if this idea is too good to share..... best hit
send before capitalist me wakes up

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Sarah Currier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Lorna- hope *my* reply there didn't seem over-zealous and too
> negative :-)  Think this is all to the good and maybe it's for the best it's
> turned out this way as those who had great ideas for the open call were able
> to get those in and we're discussing them, but we now have a chance to
> discuss #1 and #2 in more detail on a separate thread.
>
> I must admit some initial anxiety about the open bidding process may have
> played a part in my tardy-ness alongside busy-ness and exhaustion, but I'm
> becoming a fan!
>
> S.
>
>
> On 15 April 2011 17:58, Lorna Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sarah,
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to reply.  As Phil has already explained we
>> hadn't intended the wording of the call to be quite so exclusive, although
>> it's true we did want the call to appeal to people who had been engaged with
>> recent OER developments.   I guess we were a bit over zealous though!
>>
>> It is indeed possible that project one wouldn't turn up any new
>> information but I guess we'll never know unless we try! And I agree that we
>> would need to know exactly what had been sampled in order to interpret the
>> results in any sensible way.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lorna
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Open Educational Resources [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Sarah Currier [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 15 April 2011 17:42
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Mini Projects: Why no bids for projects 1 and 2? Hmm?
>>
>> Hi Lorna et al,
>>
>> As those who read my emails last week will be aware, I very much wanted to
>> bid for project #1 and was also interested in helping someone out with #2
>> (which more clearly needed a coder of some kind as the primary researcher).
>> I was gutted when it was clear by end of Friday that noone else had bid!
>>
>> However, I was initially put off by the *wording* of the call which
>> indicated that only people who had been active on this list could bid- I've
>> been off doing other (related but non-JISCie) work while this list has been
>> active. I only ended up deciding to contact Phil Barker at the beginning of
>> the final week to double check, and ended up with not enough time to
>> formulate a good bid, which, for me, would have needed to involve someone
>> willing to contribute any hard core coding stuff, or perhaps with a larger
>> institutional or project remit in this area. I am but a lone consultant,
>> albeit one with a lot of experience and interest in this area.
>>
>> I certainly think calls #1 and #2 were worthwhile, although, like Brandon,
>> I'm sceptical about whether we'd come up with much new insight, just a more
>> solid evidence-base for what we already know, *and* I would hope for a very
>> clear indication in the work done (as I think Pat mentioned) regarding to
>> what degree limitations of available software and metadata specs (and other
>> factors perhaps) affected the results. This latter point was not mentioned
>> in the project spec for #1, and I think it should be or we could end up with
>> some skewed "evidence". Some of this background could of course come from a
>> literature review of recent work, e.g. that mentioned by Erik, published by
>> his team.
>>
>> So: I'm still willing if JISC still wants this done- sounds like some
>> other folk would have been willing but didn't want to for various reasons:
>> perhaps we can pull something together once Lorna, Phil and the JISC crew
>> have reviewed these responses and made a decision on how they wish to
>> proceed. I'll reiterate: if there's a place for me in any work funded, I'll
>> be thrilled, if someone else does the work and does it well, I will also be
>> thrilled!
>>
>> Best to all for the weekend,
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 April 2011 16:49, Lorna M Campbell
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier today we're delighted to see such lively discussion
>> around the four proposals we received for the open strand of the Mini
>> Projects call.  However I can't deny that we're a little disappointed and
>> bemused that there were no bids for the other two strands.  Particularly
>> given these two projects aimed to explore issues identified by the community
>> during CETIS events such as #cetisrow and #cetiswmd and which had arisen
>> from the JISC / HEA OER Programmes.
>>
>> Just to refresh your memories, the projects in question are:
>>
>> 1. Analysis of Learning Resource Metadata Records
>> The aim of this mini project is to identify those descriptive
>> characteristics of learning resources that are frequently recorded /
>> associated with learning resources and that collection managers deem to be
>> important.  The project will undertake a semantic analysis of a large corpus
>> of educational metadata records to identify what properties and
>> characteristics of the resources are being described.
>>
>> 2.  Search Log Analysis
>>
>> Many sites hosting collections of educational materials keep logs of the
>> search terms used by visitors to the site when searching for resources. The
>> aim for this mini project is to develop a simple tool that facilitates the
>> analysis of these logs to classify the search terms used with reference to
>> the characteristics of a resource that may be described in the metadata.
>>
>> We still feel that these are important pieces of work so in an attempt to
>> understand why no bids were submitted I'd greatly appreciate it if folk
>> would take a few minutes to answer the following questions.  You can send
>> your responses to the list or directly to me in person.
>>
>> 1. Do you think these projects are not important, or not of value to your
>> community or institution?
>> 2. Do you think these projects are not achievable?
>> 3. Do you think these  are interesting projects but didn't know how to
>> approach them?
>> 4. Do you lack the skills or resources to undertake projects of this kind?
>> 5. Were you put off by the bidding procedure?
>> 6. Were you put off by the level of funding?
>> 7. Did you just not get round to writing a  proposal?
>>
>> If you have any other comments or suggestions regarding this call please
>> do let us know.  We'd really welcome your feedback so we can  be more
>> effective in attempting to tailor any future calls to meet community
>> requirements.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lorna
>> --
>> Lorna M. Campbell
>> JISC CETIS Assistant Director
>> University of Strathclyde
>> Glasgow
>> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Phone: +44141 548 3072
>> Skype: lorna120768
>>
>> The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, number SC015263.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sarah Currier
>>
>> Sarah Currier Consultancy Ltd.
>> EdTech | Resource Sharing | Web 2.0 | Metadata | Repositories
>>
>> w: http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
>> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> t: +44 (0)7980855801
>>
>> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahcurrier
>> Skype: morageyrie
>>
>> ________________________________
>
> --
> Sarah Currier
>
> Sarah Currier Consultancy Ltd.
> EdTech | Resource Sharing | Web 2.0 | Metadata | Repositories
>
> w: http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
> e: [log in to unmask]
> t: +44 (0)7980855801
>
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahcurrier
> Skype: morageyrie
>
> ________________________________
>