Print

Print


 From that we can tell that the repository navigation and search  
facilities affect little of the ultimate repository usage. (This may  
be a depressing message for a repository administrator such as  
myself, because it highlights how little control I have over my  
repository's users either to help or manipulate them!)

Of the 225 local repository links, the following breakdown applies:
   13 Latest Deposits page
103 Searches (both simple and advanced)
   57 Browse by Schools and Groups Hierarchy
   17 Browse by Subjects Hierarchy
     0 Browse by Year of Publication
   33 Directly linked from other abstracts (or reloads).
   12 Misc infrastructure

ie 11% of the downloaded records are accounted for by use of the  
local repository. 8% of that usage is caused by the subjects tree (ie  
0.86% of all eprint downloads are caused by the subject tree). For  
what it's worth, a breakdown of papers by school and research group  
is three times more popular than the subjects list, but it is still  
only involved in 3% of the downloads. Local search accounts for 5%,  
but it still isn't very significant! The result is even more gloomy  
for the breakdown by "Year of Publication", which didn't lead to any  
eprint downloads whatsoever!