The majority of repository use, if I can equate eprint downloads with  
repository use, is due to external web search engines (64%).

This may be due to the fact that of the 1978 downloads, only 131 (or  
7%) came from Southampton University IP addresses. In other words,  
behaviour of external traffic dominates the repository usage.

If you look only at the local users from the above data (the  
downloads that came from Southampton IP addresses), then the  
breakdown is as follows.
  39 (direct URL, perhaps cut and paste into a browser or clicked on  
from an email client)
     1 Directly linked from other abstracts (or reloads)
   10 Latest Deposits page
   71 Local Repository Searches
     1 Browse by Schools and Groups Hierarchy
   10 External Search Engines

These numbers are quite low and really need a longer period to be  
confident, but it appears that local repository searches are much  
more popular than external search engines for local users. But the  
browse by year/subject/school are all largely ignored.

Taking a diifferent approach and looking at all of the page requests  
for the repository that were coming from the University of  
Southampton users (not just eprint downloads but the home page and  
all search requests and browsing pages but ignoring icons,  
stylesheets and javascript), in the same period there were 1025  
requests coming from 52 uniquely identifiable users.
   72 Home Page
   52 Latest Deposits
122 Search
      2 List of Browse Choices
    25 Browse by Group
      6 Browse by Subjects
      2 Browse by Year
132 Download Eprint Records (abstracts page)
   26 Download EPrints Files (full texts)
544 User Login, Deposit and Admin
   14 OAI-PMH

Once again we can see that local search overwhelms the use of local  
browse categories (whether by subject, group or year).

External users dominate repository usage.
External search engines (including OAI search engines) are the  
primary mechanism for finding papers.
Local users show a somewhat greater tendency to use local search  
Neither external nor local users appear much influenced by subject  
listings or other browse categories.

This study seems fairly conclusive but its results may not be  
typical. Further study is being undertaken to compare these results  
with other types of repository and to determine the repository  
features (if indeed there are any) that can best help readers in the  
task of finding relevant material (resource discovery).
Les Carr