Today’s library discovery services are primarily based upon indexes derived from journals, e-books and other electronic information of a scholarly nature. The content comes from a range of information providers and products--commercial, open access, institutional, etc. By indexing the content in advance, discovery services have the ability to deliver more sophisticated services with instant performance, compared to the federated search techniques used previously. Libraries increasingly rely on index-based discovery services as their strategic interfaces through which their patrons gain access to the rapidly growing breadth of information that may be available to them.
This webinar will discuss the challenges of operating a centralized index-based discovery system. Learn about their strengths, and their weaknesses, the needs for standards and best practices in this arena, how libraries and providers can assess the usage, and how libraries can satisfy audiences with different needs--ranging from undergraduates to faculty across every discipline.
NISO Webinar: Discovery & Delivery: Innovations & Challenges
1. [insert web address for NISO webinar page]
Discovery and Delivery: Innovations and
Challenges
September 26, 2012
Speakers: Lucy Harrison,
Timothy Babbitt, David Bietila
2. Introducing the
Open Discovery Initiative
NISO Webinar: Discovery and Delivery:
Innovations and Challenges
Lucy Harrison, Florida Virtual Campus, D2D Liaison
September 26, 2012
2
3. Topics
• What are centralized indexes?
• What are their strengths and
weaknesses?
• What is the NISO ODI initiative?
• How will it help improve the discovery
landscape?
3
5. Discovery Interfaces ILS Data
Digital
Search: Local Collections
Index
ProQuest
Search Results
EBSCOhost
Federated
Search
Engine
…
MLA
Bibliography
ABC-CLIO
Real-time query
and responses
6. Index-based Discovery ILS Data
Digital
Search: Collections
Consolidated Index
ProQuest
Search Results EBSCOhost
…
MLA
Bibliography
ABC-CLIO
Harvesting and indexing performed in advance
7. Strengths of Index-based
Discovery
• Fast response time (vs. federated search)
• Structured metadata:
– Improves search & retrieval
– Faceted navigation
– Improves integration of search results
• Indexing full-text of content amplifies
access
7
8. Issues with Index-based
Discovery
• Important to understand depth of indexing
– Currency, dates covered, full-text or citation,
quality of metadata
• Uneven participation diminishes impact
• Ecosystem dominated by private
agreements
• Complexity and uncertainty poses barriers
for participation
9. Need to Bring Order to Chaos
• Libraries need the ability to understand
and evaluate tools, content, providers
• Information providers need the confidence
that their content is being treated fairly
• Service providers need the ability to more
efficiently integrate content
9
10. Key Areas for Libraries
• Strategic investments (in subscriptions and
discovery solutions)
• Expect comprehensive representation of
resources in discovery indexes
• Need to be able to evaluate the depth and
quality of these index-based discovery
products
• Usage reporting
11. Collection Coverage Questions
• How well does the index cover the body of scholarly
content?
• Why do some publishers not participate?
• How can libraries understand the differences in coverage
among competing services?
• How are your library’s content packages represented by
the discovery service?
• Which resources are not represented in index?
• Is content indexed at the citation or full-text level?
• What is the quality of the metadata?
• What are the restrictions for non-authenticated users?
12. Key Areas for Service Providers
• Encourage information providers to
participate
• Lower thresholds of technical involvement
• Clarify the business rules associated with
involvement
• Common industry standards and
definitions
• Usage reporting
13. Key Areas for Information
Providers
• Discovery brings uncertainty
• Want to expose content widely (increase
usage), but
• There are trust issues
– With Access / Authentication
– With ―Fair‖ Linking
• Private agreements
• Usage reporting
16. ODI Pre-History
• June 26, 2011: Exploratory meeting @
ALA Annual
• July 2011: NISO expresses interest
• Aug 7, 2011: Proposal drafted by
participants submitted to NISO
16
17. ODI Proposal
Define standards and/or best practices for
index-based discovery services
– Evaluate the breadth and depth of content
– Evaluate availability of content to different
institutions and to different users
– Streamline workflows
– Define models for fair linking
– Determine what usage statistics should be
collected and disseminated
17
18. ODI Pre-History
• June 26, 2011: Exploratory meeting @
ALA Annual
• July 2011: NISO expresses interest
• Aug 7, 2011: Proposal drafted by
participants submitted to NISO
• Aug 2011: Proposal accepted by D2D
• Vote of approval by NISO membership
• Oct 2011: ODI launched
• Feb 2012: ODI Workgroup Formed 18
19. ODI Charge and Objectives
• Improve information services to end users
as mediated through index-based
discovery services
• Create an environment that broadens
stakeholder participation and ensures
confidence
• Foster development of best practices and
effective means of assessment
19
20. Specific Benefits
Librarians
– Can offer their users as wide a range of
content as possible via their discovery
service of choice
– Can better evaluate discovery services
to address their needs
20
21. Specific Benefits
Information providers
– Have the confidence that the discovery
service providers are handling their
content in an appropriate manner
– Are therefore encouraged to make
available the widest range of content—
in terms of breadth and depth – for
indexing by the discovery service
providers
21
22. Specific Benefits
Discovery service providers
– Receive more standardized and efficient
integration with the information
providers through common industry
definitions and communications
22
23. Balance of Constituents
Libraries
Marshall Breeding, Co-Chair Michele Newberry, Florida Virtual Campus
Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon
Laura Morse, Harvard University Lucy Harrison, Florida Virtual Campus (D2D
Ken Varnum, University of Michigan liaison/observer)
Information Providers
Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc
Roger Schonfeld, ITHAKA/JSTOR/Portico Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press
Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters Peter Noerr, MuseGlobal
Service Providers
Jenny Walker, Ex Libris Group (Co-Chair) David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC)
John Law, Serials Solutions Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)
Michael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services
23
24. Organization
• Reports in NISO through Document to
Delivery topic committee (D2D)
• Staff support from NISO (Nettie Lagace)
• Co-Chairs
– Jenny Walker (Ex Libris)
– Marshall Breeding (Library Consultant)
• D2D Observers:
– Jeff Penka (OCLC), Lucy Harrison (FLVC)
24
25. ODI Project Goals
1. Identify, possibly through surveys or other
questionnaires, the needs and requirements of
the three stakeholder groups in this area of
work
• Created subgroups for information gathering:
– Level of Indexing
– Library Rights
– Technical formats
– Usage Statistics
– Fair Linking
25
26. ODI Project Goals
1. Identify, possibly through surveys or other
questionnaires, the needs and requirements of
the three stakeholder groups in this area of
work
• Created subgroups for information gathering
• Conducted interviews with stakeholders
• Created survey with input from all sub groups
• Survey is currently live (closes October 4)
26
28. ODI Project Goals
1. Identify, possibly through surveys or other
questionnaires, the needs and requirements of
the three stakeholder groups in this area of
work
• Created subgroups for information gathering
• Conducted interviews with stakeholders
• Created survey with input from all sub groups
• Survey is currently live (closes October 4)
• Analyze results as input to Goal 2
28
29. ODI Project Goals:
2. Create recommendations and tools to
streamline the process by which information
providers, discovery service providers, and
librarians work together to better serve libraries
and their users
30. ODI Project Goals:
3. Provide effective means for librarians to assess
the level of participation by information
providers in discovery services, to evaluate the
breadth and depth of content indexed and the
degree to which this content is made available
to the user
31. Specific deliverables
• Standard Vocabulary
• NISO Recommended Practice:
– Data format & transfer
– Communicating content rights
– Levels of indexing, content availability
– Linking to content
– Usage statistics
– Evaluate compliance
• Inform and Promote Adoption
31
32. Timeline
Milestone Target Date Status
Appointment of working group December 2011
Approval of charge and initial work plan March 2012
Agreement on process and tools June 2012
Survey completed Oct 4, 2012
Completion of information gathering October 2012
Completion of initial draft January 2013
Completion of final draft May 2013
32
33. Connect with ODI
• ODI Project website:
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi/
• Interest group mailing list:
http://www.niso.org/lists/opendiscovery/
• Email ODI:
odi@niso.org
33
34. Seeing Discovery Through User Colored Glasses
NISO Webinar: Discovery and Delivery: Innovations and Challenges
Timothy Babbitt, Senior Vice President, Platform Management, ProQuest
35. Understanding What Is Valuable to Users
Foundation of Librarianship
S.R. Ranganathan’s The Five Laws of Library
Science (Madras India: Madras Library Association, 1931)
1. Books are for use.
2. Every reader his [or her] book.
3. Every book its reader.
4. Save the time of the reader.
5. The library is a growing organism.
Even at a time when the emphasis was entirely on
physical media the focus was on the individual goals
and needs each type of user (the reader)
36. The Five Laws Updated
Ranganathan Updated Laws
1. Books are for use. 1. Information in all of its forms is for
2. Every reader his [or her] book. use.
2. Every researcher their
3. Every book its reader.
information.
4. Save the time of the reader. 3. Every medium and delivery
5. The library is a growing platform its user.
organism. 4. Enable efficient discovery by the
user.
5. The library is part of an evolving
research ecosystem.
The proliferation of web based information tools allows us to track users and
their behavior with increasing precision but understanding the unique needs and
behaviors of different researchers requires deep analysis and interpretation of a
variety of data – traditional usage data does not tell the whole story.
37. How do we measure value in the evolving
research landscape?
Traditional Model
Usage data to measure value (searches and retrievals) –
more usage = more value
Growing Trend
Web based analytics – behavioral and attitudinal dimensions
segmented by types of users
Key Question
How can we combine both approaches and what can they provide
that traditional usage data cannot?
Usage Data = what they did
Other Analytics = what they were trying to do; did they succeed; what
was the context; and who was doing it?
38. Value Differs by User
Who is doing the research matters
Librarians
Making their patrons successful
Promoting services of library to students and faculty with
confidence
Delivering services that are convenient for their users
Faculty
Extending their influence and reach in their discipline
through published research
Efficiently directing students to materials that meet
learning objectives
Obtaining research grants
Students
Completing coursework in accordance with faculty
directives
Remaining in compliance with source attribution policies
Accessing information conveniently
39. Conventional Wisdom Might Tell Us
High use = high value
High satisfaction = high value
Use (search and retrievals) is homogenous
Including Attitudinal and Behavioral dimensions to
traditional usage data allows us to challenge many long
held assumptions
40. Three Dimensions of Analysis
Focus of Analysis:
The discovery and
consumption of
documents (COUNTER
Usage Reporting e.g. Searches
and Retrieves) etc.
Focus of Analysis: Focus of Analysis:
What is the user’s
What is the user Attitudinal Behavioral context?
satisfaction? (Page Views per
visit, Time on Site,
and Clickstream
etc.)
41. Three Dimensions of Analysis
Focus of Analysis:
The discovery and
consumption of
documents (COUNTER
Usage Reporting e.g. Searches
and Retrieves) etc.
Attitudinal Behavioral
42. Usage in the new age of discovery
A case study
Earlier this year, a library contacted us about a large
increase in search usage in one of their databases:
Month 11-Jan 11-Feb 11-Mar 11-Apr …
Searches Run 50 250 43 199
Month 12-Jan 12-Feb 12-Mar 12-Apr …
Searches Run 265 616 1176 847
43. Web scale discovery and workflow
By default, the user runs an all database search
(thus showing as a ―hit‖ against all DB’s in the library’s subscription.)
In this scenario, the user starts their search for ―space tourism‖ via a discovery service such
as Summon. Finding a document they like, they click through to the ProQuest platform and
land at the document level. Then decide to run another search, which ―hits‖ all databases.
44. Usage in the new age of discovery
The cause? Heavily utilization of a new web scale discovery
service.
Users now used our website differently than users who started
at the library ―Databases A-Z‖ page. The change in how their
users were coming to our site led to a change in usage.
Usage data showed the effect of the change of their patrons’
research environment. Determining the cause required looking
beyond the usage data.
For more details see the white paper ―Usage in the New Age of Discovery‖
45. Three Dimensions of Analysis
Usage
Focus of Analysis:
What is the user’s
Attitudinal Behavioral context?
(Page Views per
visit, Time on Site,
and Clickstream
etc.)
48. Three Dimensions of Analysis
Usage
Focus of Analysis:
What is the user Attitudinal Behavioral
satisfaction?
49. Attitudinal – Satisfaction Comparison
Survey Methodology
Over 19,500 Surveys
Data from November 2011 through September 2012
Continuous monitoring
Predictive modeling
Librarians Faculty Students
59. “Deeper Dive” with Segment Analysis:
Data: Nov. 8, 2011 through Aug 7, 2012
60. Seeing Value from a User
Perspective
We need the triangulation of
Usage data
Behavioral data
Attitudinal data
Drive understanding of
What did the users do?
What was the context of use?
What were they trying to do and were they successful?
Important because the research ecosystem is
changing
i.e. Web scale discovery
61. Toward understanding what is
valuable to users
Updated Laws
1. Information in all of its forms is for use.
2. Every researcher their information.
3. Every medium and delivery platform its
user.
4. Enable efficient discovery by the user.
5. The library is part of an evolving
research ecosystem.
62. Next steps
Complete integration and analysis of
Usage data
Behavioral data
Attitudinal data
Give libraries a deep understanding of value from
user segments
Next stop…content and search analysis!
63. Collecting Patron Perspectives on
Discovery Tools
NISO Webinar
Discovery and Delivery: Innovations and
Challenges
September 26, 2012
David Bietila
Web Program Director
The University of Chicago Library
64.
65. Data Sources
Finding
Aids
Databases Digital
& Indexes Collections
Discovery
Catalog Tool
Web Pages
66.
67.
68.
69. Assessment Questions
Product Characteristics
Technical
Functional
Interface
Relevance to Users
Define use case
Novice users of databases and electronic resources who need to
find articles on a topic.
Assess product’s applicability to this use case
70. 1. User Comments
Topic User attitudes toward the product, and specific aspects valued by
users.
Method Posted link to a comment form in the header.
Set up an info table for three days.
Required minimal effort to collect data.
Sample Questions What type of resource were you looking for with the Articles Plus?
Please share any positive or negative comments about your
experience.
Results Unprecedented proportion of positive comments.
Users valued the speed of this search, and the ability to search
both books and articles in one place.
Functional & Interface Assessment
71. Resource sought Journal article
Successful? Yes
Affiliation Graduate or Professional School Student
Comment This was a quick search and gave me exactly what I needed.
Resource sought Academic journal articles
Successful? No
Affiliation Graduate or Professional School Student
Record included books, needed a way to filter this out
Comment
results from Time magazine, not what I was looking for at all
Both books and articles on certain topics (ones related to philosophy, psychology and
Resource sought
literature).
Successful? Partial
Affiliation Graduate or Professional School Student
It's wonderful to have ONE place where you can search for both articles and books! However, it
seems like more books should show up because some books relevant to my search showed up
Comment
in lens but not in Articles Plus. If you don't choose this search tool, please do adopt some search
tool that allows comprehensive searching of both books and articles!
72.
73. 2. Usage Statistics
Topic Usage relative to major databases
Method Examined data presented in the discovery tool’s admin interface.
Compared usage with that of high traffic databases (Web of
Science, JSTOR, Academic Search Premier).
Results Observed increasing usage, reaching parity in the initial year with
Academic Search Premier.
Verified that users were finding and using the tool.
Interface Assessment
74. Searches per Month - Articles Plus and Major Databases
50000
45000
40000
EDS Foundation Index
35000
(ArticlesPlus)
30000 Web of Science
25000
JSTOR
20000
15000
Academic Search
10000 Premier
5000
0
75. 3. Usability Testing
Topic Clarity of search interface, including functional elements and
labels.
User ability to complete article discovery tasks.
Method Assigned representative article searching tasks.
Recording screen activity and spoken comments for analysis.
Sample Questions Can you locate full text of the following article? Mary L.
Dudziak, “Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative,” 41 Stanford
Law Review 61 (1988)
You are working to prepare a summary of developments in the
field of astronomy. Can you locate five articles on astronomy that
were published in Nature in 2010?
Functional & Interface Assessment
77. 3. Usability Testing
Results
• Cut or relabeled certain facets
• Made heavily used features more prominent.
• Removed unused or confusing features
• Determined collections to be retained or removed from coverage.
Functional & Interface Assessment
82. Other Use Cases
Experienced researchers
Searching interdisciplinary topics
Searching outside their primary area
Searching within their primary area
83. 4. Subject Assessments
Topic Applicability of the discovery tool for use by advanced researchers
in disciplines with a variety of requirements.
Method Enlisted bibliographers and subject specialists as proxies for
different user constituencies.
Created an evaluation rubric to ensure comparable results across
over 40 disciplines assessed.
Results Determined which disciplines would be best served by the tool.
Identified strength of coverage in numerous disciplines.
Functional Assessment
86. Compared to Compared to
Subjects – Social
First 25 Results Core Database JSTOR/ Google
Sciences Results Scholar Results
Anthropology/Geography/Maps ~ ~ ~
Gender Studies ~ ~ -
History + + +
International Political Economy ~ - ~
Psychology + - ~
Sexuality Studies + + +
87. Outcomes & Future Assessment
Recommendation to purchase
Improvements
Local configuration
Enhancement requests
Marketing & Communication
Benefit of Iterative Assessment
Future assessment
Applicability of new coverage
Revisiting usability
Overlap with other search tools
88. THANK YOU
Thank you for joining us today.
Please take a moment to fill out the brief online survey.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Notes de l'éditeur
Publishers must decide what content is appropriate and at what level. respect the rights of the publisher and be sensitive to their business needs. Trust by the information provider that the information indexed is correct and updated. Sharing of information on the use of the indexed content. Show users only what they are allowed to see. Authority – indicate the source of the record. 3. Fair linking by discovery providers – typically in the hands of the library via OpenURL link resolvers.4. How can publishers assess use of their content in Discovery ServicesCmplexity and uncertainty pose barriers to participation
Currently working OK but still governed by private agreements between discovery service provider and content providers and relies on a wide range of formats and data exchange processes; Complexity and uncertainty pose barriers to participation.
The goal of this work item is to create a working group to define standards and/or best practices for the new generation of library discovery services that are based on indexed search. These discovery services are primarily based upon indexes derived from journals, ebooks and other electronic information of a scholarly nature. Project goals include: provision of effective means for libraries to evaluate the breadth and depth of content indexed by discovery services and the degree of availability of content to different institutions and to different users; development of a set of best practices that can help streamline the process by which information providers work with discovery service vendors, including creation of a common vocabulary; streamlining of the interaction and communication between vendors and information providers, including activation of libraries' subscriptions; definition of models for fair linking from the discovery service to the publisher content; and determination of what usage statistics should be collected, for whom, and how these should be disseminated.
Talking PointsThe Five Laws were proposed by S.R. Ranganathan (a Mathematician and Librarian from India) to outline his view for operating a library systemHe is considered to be one of the early thinkers leading the view that librarianship was a science While his original vision was focused on a world of physical media, his laws are founded in providing a library system that is focused on the user (the “reader” in his terminology).
Given there is such a wide array of media, devices, professional networks, and platforms that are available to users today, we propose the following revision to the 5 Laws…The Five Laws can be updated and reinterpreted to accommodate the variety of media that are now available – but the focus must remain on the varying needs and goals of users.
At the highest level, the goals of users are very different and what they value is very different.
In our industry, the focus of analytics has been on “Usage”.The focus of Usage Analytics is understanding the discovery and consumption of documents. This includes Counter reporting of variables such as “Searches” and “Retrieves”. ProQuest has begun to weave in analysis from two other sources which have lead to some opportunities for “break through” research which will allow ProQuest to become more efficient and effective with its platform over time. Behavioral Analytics allow us to understand how users are getting to our site. Visits, page views, time on site and specific actions can be tracked. Attitudinal Analytics allow us to see who the user is and what do they want. This leads to the ability to track satisfaction, which we think may hold promise as a proxy for the performance from a user perspective. It also allows us to perform segment analysis on specific personas so we can match visitors with actions.
In our industry, the focus of analytics has been on “Usage”.The focus of Usage Analytics is understanding the discovery and consumption of documents. This includes Counter reporting of variables such as “Searches” and “Retrieves”. ProQuest has begun to weave in analysis from two other sources which have lead to some opportunities for “break through” research which will allow ProQuest to become more efficient and effective with its platform over time. Behavioral Analytics allow us to understand how users are getting to our site. Visits, page views, time on site and specific actions can be tracked. Attitudinal Analytics allow us to see who the user is and what do they want. This leads to the ability to track satisfaction, which we think may hold promise as a proxy for the performance from a user perspective. It also allows us to perform segment analysis on specific personas so we can match visitors with actions.
In this scenario, the group starts their search for “space tourism” via a discovery service such as Summon. They click through to the ProQuest platform and land on the Washington Post article on the subject. They decide to run another search, which “hits” all databases in their subscription.Notice when they arrive at the ProQuest platform, they are searching all databases in their subscription. Therefore, subsequent searches will hit every database on their subscription. This activity shows up on usage reports.
In the talk, mention that we discovered the cause by analyzing some referring URL data. That’s part of the behavioral data that we now segue to.
This is view of visits to our new platform per day. [Should we hide the Y-Axis label?]We have included the 30 day moving average.Precise measurement of visits on a daily basis allow us to see exactly when there are deviations. Notice how there is a very consistent pattern for 6 straight weeks. In the 7th week, there is anomaly? Why?... That is February 14th, Valentine’s day. Apparently, not many were studying on that day.Notice spike in traffic near the end of March (just before most US Spring Break) and the dip in early April (vacation, Easter). Continuous monitoring allow us to see regular patterns in the data, which give us a credible baseline. We can then detect even small changes that deviate from the pattern.
After making a new release, we found that the pages viewed/ visit were down.This was considered a Key Performance Indicator. However, after reviewing data from Satisfaction and Time Spent on Site, we found that my making our platform more efficient and effective, we may have been making improvement our platform despite diminishing this metric.
In our industry, the focus of analytics has been on “Usage”.The focus of Usage Analytics is understanding the discovery and consumption of documents. This includes Counter reporting of variables such as “Searches” and “Retrieves”. ProQuest has begun to weave in analysis from two other sources which have lead to some opportunities for “break through” research which will allow ProQuest to become more efficient and effective with its platform over time. Behavioral Analytics allow us to understand how users are getting to our site. Visits, page views, time on site and specific actions can be tracked. Attitudinal Analytics allow us to see who the user is and what do they want. This leads to the ability to track satisfaction, which we think may hold promise as a proxy for the performance from a user perspective. It also allows us to perform segment analysis on specific personas so we can match visitors with actions.
We can confidently state that End Users (Students and Professors) have a higher satisfaction than Librarians The numbers are so polarized that we may run the risk of diminishing satisfaction with End Users if we improve satisfaction with Librarians. Is difference due to Task, Visit Frequency or Persona differences?
We can confidently state that End Users (Students and Professors) have a higher satisfaction than Librarians The numbers are so polarized that we may run the risk of diminishing satisfaction with End Users if we improve satisfaction with Librarians. Is difference due to Task, Visit Frequency or Persona differences?
This chart shows a trend-line of Student Satisfaction.Notice that there is a December dip… perhaps due to exam season, tight deadlines.. End of the exam season.Would have expected a similar drop in May. However, we were able to maintain similar satisfaction levels.It will be interesting to see if we are able to gain satisfaction in September.
This graphic shows Student Satisfaction by Week. The trend-line is satisfaction, the bars in the background show the number of surveys collected for the week. The green boxes (that fade in) show our performance leading up to academic semesters. In both cases our satisfaction was at relatively low
This chart shows the primary purpose for visitors to our platform and their Satisfaction differences.Those that are working on an ongoing research project, are selecting or exploring a research project and are looking for 2-3 good articles have slight higher than average SatisfactionThose that are on our platform to find a quote, statistics or fact, looking for a specific document or have followed a link to a specific article have lower than average satisfaction.This chart shows that expectations of the audience can have a dramatic impact on satisfaction.
What you see on this graph is a comparison the Satisfaction of students by School Type (Community College, Undergrad, Graduate School and Elementary/High School)We are able to perform segment analysis on the data with the goal of finding out if there are significant differences in Satisfaction by group.The blue dots represent the indexed satisfaction score on a 100 points scale. The upper bound (green dash) and the lower bound (red dash) represent the 90% confidence interval range (as calculated by the sample size of respondents and the standard deviation of the satisfaction data). The highest satisfaction group is community colleges. The lowest Satisfaction group is Elementary/High Schools. It is interesting to note that the Undergrads have a slightly higher than average satisfaction and Graduate students have a slightly lower than average Satisfaction, though both are close to the overall average. This reinforces that we are matching intended “sweet spot” for our platform, which is “intermediate searchers”.
What you see on this graph is a comparison the Satisfaction of students by School Type (Community College, Undergrad, Graduate School and Elementary/High School)We are able to perform segment analysis on the data with the goal of finding out if there are significant differences in Satisfaction by group.The blue dots represent the indexed satisfaction score on a 100 points scale. The upper bound (green dash) and the lower bound (red dash) represent the 90% confidence interval range (as calculated by the sample size of respondents and the standard deviation of the satisfaction data). The highest satisfaction group is community colleges. The lowest Satisfaction group is Elementary/High Schools. It is interesting to note that the Undergrads have a slightly higher than average satisfaction and Graduate students have a slightly lower than average Satisfaction, though both are close to the overall average. This reinforces that we are matching intended “sweet spot” for our platform, which is “intermediate searchers”.
Depending on the school type – the tasks are different. 4 key columns Select or explore topicArticles for an assignmentResearch project (high for graduate school)Specific Article (elementary in alignment with graduate)
1. Retrieves per search is higher with hospitals with lower satisfaction while the inverse is true for the Nursing Medical Schools.