 |
 |
In specific terms of finer granularity than country, and taking into account the metrics unreliable, together with ambiguities imposed by ISP location, and robot and spider activity, snapshot reporting could be usefully and perhaps more advantageously be communally developed, were the survey recommendations to be presented in ENGLISH. Dan Hull <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: Issues related to Historic Environment Records <[log in to unmask]> 10/02/10 10:40 Please respond to Issues related to Historic Environment Records <[log in to unmask]> To [log in to unmask] cc Subject Web metrics report Dear All Last year, HEIRNET carried out a survey of historic information resources to find out how they collect web metrics and what they do with them. Many thanks to the many of you who participated in this. A short report is now available from the HEIRNET website (on the homepage): www.britarch.ac.uk/heirnet. This report contains a set of ten draft recommendations, which I?ve included below. It would be valuable to have your input and feedback on these recommendations. If you have any comments, you can send them direct to me, preferably before 31 May. The more information we have on the ways in which we all collect and study web metrics, the more we can potentially ?pool? our data and adopt common approaches. The idea is that while information providers inevitably differ, being able to cross-compare our data should enable greater discussion of how we can potentially increase audiences and monitor usage more effectively. Any thoughts would be appreciated! All the best Dan. ________________ Dr Dan Hull Head of Information & Communications Council for British Archaeology, St Mary's House, 66 Bootham, York YO30 7BZ tel 01904 671417, fax 01904 671384 A Company Limited by Guarantee, registered in England 1760254 & Registered Charity 287815. Are you a member of the CBA? www.britarch.ac.uk/join Draft recommendations 1. It is recommended that access statistics are collected and analysed by HEIRs at least quarterly and that if analysis is done more frequently then results can be aggregated into quarterly reports for cross-comparison. 2. Given the difficulties of equating IP addresses with unique users due to IP pools etc., it is not recommended that metrics on IP adressess are used. Rather, more specific information collected from registered users and web surveys can be used and, where necessary, extrapolated to give a general impression of total users and user breakdown 3. In terms of user location at finer granularity than country, ambiguities imposed by ISP location make the collection of such information on the basis of metrics unreliable. It may be better to rely on user registration information, as above 4. It is surprising that less than half of HEIRs analyse information on how users reached their website. Understanding how our sites are discovered is an important tool in making them more discoverable, so logging of referring sites and (where possible/applicable) search terms is desirable. 5. It is useful to draw a distinction between information collected on access statistics and user behaviour. Information on user behaviour cannot easily be compared on a like-for-like basis, so although sharing is useful on a qualitative basis, quantitative comparisons are likely to be deceptive (with the possible exception of bounce rates. 6. Browser-based analyses using external providers (such as Google Analytics) are useful for snapshot reporting, but for the analysis of long-term trends the collection and analysis of logs internally is recommended ? unless long-term access to external service providers and the data they hold can be guaranteed. 7. It is important that those responsible for analysing web metrics have a good understanding of the role of robot and spider activity since these are likely to skew statistics on user behaviour. For cross-comparison purposes, robots.txt files should also be shared. 8. Organisations in the historic environment sector could do more to compare approaches to web metrics, and also the many different non-metric approaches such as web surveys, user observation, and registration information. Shared surveys should be considered. 9. The sharing of web metrics between HEIRs should occur more regularly and openly, as a useful tool by which the sector can monitor overall take-up and use of resources. The ability to show more clearly how (and how well) historic environment information resources are used will enable us more easily to obtain the necessary resources to support and develop them into an uncertain economic future 10. In order to facilitate more widespread sharing of web metrics, common standards should be developed communally by the sector, and a straightforward (and updateable) guide to measuring and describing use of web resources produced to enable more organisations to take part in such activities * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This email and any attachments with it are intended for the addressee only. It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender or [log in to unmask] The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and cannot be taken as an expression of the County Council's position. Surrey County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing mail. Whilst every care has been taken to check this e-mail for viruses, it is your responsibility to carry out any checks upon receipt. Visit the Surrey County Council website - http://www.surreycc.gov.uk * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *