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!