Scholarly Work - Library

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Why So Many Repositories? Examining the Limitations and Possibilities of the Institutional Repositories Landscape
(Taylor & Francis, 2018-03) Arlitsch, Kenning; Grant, Carl
Academic libraries fail to take advantage of the network effect because they manage too many digital repositories locally. While this argument applies to all manner of digital repositories, this article examines the fragmented environment of institutional repositories, in which effort and costs are duplicated, numerous software platforms and versions are managed simultaneously, metadata are applied inconsistently, users are served poorly, and libraries are unable to take advantage of collective data about content and users. In the meantime, commercial IR vendors and academic social networks have shown much greater success with cloud-based models. Collectively, the library profession has enough funding to create a national-level IR, but it lacks the willingness to abandon local control.
Final Performance Report Narrative: Getting Found
(2014-11) Arlitsch, Kenning; OBrien, Patrick; Godby, Jean; Mixter, Jeff; Clark, Jason A.; Young, Scott W. H.; Smith, Devon; Rossmann, Doralyn; Sterman, Leila B.; Tate, Angela; Hansen, Mary Anne
The research we proposed to IMLS in 2011 was prompted by a realization that the digital library at the University of Utah was suffering from low visitation and use. We knew that we had a problem with low visibility on the Web because search engines such as Google were not harvesting and indexing our digitized objects, but we had only a limited understanding of the reasons. We had also done enough quantitative surveys of other digital libraries to know that many libraries were suffering from this problem. IMLS funding helped us understand the reasons why library digital repositories weren’t being harvested and indexed. Thanks to IMLS funding of considerable research and application of better practices we were able to dramatically improve the indexing ratios of Utah’s digital objects in Google, and consequently the numbers of visitors to the digital collections increased. In presentations and publications we shared the practices that led to our accomplishments at Utah. The first year of the grant focused on what the research team has come to call “traditional search engine optimization,” and most of this work was carried out at the University of Utah. The final two years of the grant were conducted at Montana State University after the PI was appointed as dean of the library there. These latter two years moved more toward “Semantic Web optimization,” which includes areas of research in semantic identity, data modeling, analytics and social media optimization
Getting Found: Search Engine Optimization for Digital Repositories
(2011-02) Arlitsch, Kenning; OBrien, Patrick
Libraries and archives have been building digital repositories for over a decade, and, viewed in total, have amassed collections of considerable size. The use of the scholarly and lay content in these databases is predicated on visibility in Internet search engines, but initial surveys conducted by the University of Utah across numerous libraries and archives has revealed a disturbing reality: the number of digital objects successfully harvested and indexed by search engines from our digital repositories is abysmally low. The reasons for the poor showings in Internet search engines are complex, and are both technical and administrative. Web servers may be configured incorrectly, and may lack sufficient speed performance. Repository software may be designed or configured in a way that is difficult for crawlers to navigate. Metadata are often not unique or structured as recognizable taxonomies, and in some cases search engines prefer other schemas. Search engine policies change, and some commonly accepted standards in the library community are not being supported by some search engines. Google Scholar, for instance, has recently recommended against Dublin Core as a metadata schema in institutional repositories in favor of publishing industry schemas, a recommendation that comes as a shock to most librarians who learn of it. The problem lies less with search engines than with the content that search engines have to work with. This proposal will result in improvements to the way the content is presented so that search engines can parse, organize, and serve more relevant results to researchers and other users. The search engine market is fluid and intensely competitive. While Google retains the majority of direct search engine traffic, Bing is making progress quickly, and social media engines are changing the face of search itself, putting more emphasis on content that is popular and frequently refreshed. These changes will further affect the visibility of the content in our digital repositories, and must be investigated. With our formal partner, OCLC, Inc., and with help from informal partners the Digital Library Federation and the Mountain West Digital Library, we plan to expand our research, and then develop and publish a toolkit that will help libraries and archives make their database content more accessible and useful to search engines. The toolkit will include recommendations to web server administrators, repository software developers, and to repository managers. It will include reporting tools that will help measure and monitor effectiveness in achieving visibility in search engines, metrics that in turn will be useful to administrators in demonstrating the value proposition of their repositories. The sea of information available on the Internet is constantly growing, and library and archival content risks invisibility. We believe search engine optimization for digital repositories is a real and crucial issue that must be addressed, not only to improve our return on investment, but also to help us remain relevant in the age of electronic publishing.

Scholarly Work - Library

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results