Last week we looked at reporting electronic stuff (mostly eBooks and Audiobooks) on the annual public library survey. This week will focus on one particular aspect of that, called electronic collections. Now historically the public library survey has had questions about databases. These include the databases provided by the Library Commission (
NebraskAccess) and any databases offered locally by the library. So first off, what is a database? Well, a database is generally an electronic (online these days) catalog or index that contains information about published items, and in most (but not all) cases, the items themselves. This might include journal articles, magazines, newspapers, reference information (including images and video), books, or other documents (e.g. the historical Census records from the My Heritage database on NebraskAccess would be an example).
Now, the intent of some state data coordinators (SDC’s) was to broaden this definition a bit to include things that might not technically fit into the historical database mold, but don’t necessarily fit anywhere else either. These include things like Freegal, Zinio, Mango Languages, TumbleBooks, Tutor.com, and many many others. So someone proposed changing the definition from “database” to the broader “electronic collection” (although arguably these could all fall under the database umbrella, and many SDC’s make the argument both ways), and then capturing the number of times the electronic collection is used. Oddly, the SDC’s voted to change the definition of a database to the broader electronic collection, but not to capture or report the number of uses. To the Dude, it doesn’t matter much if you call it a database, electronic collection, or a duck, the real question is what is it and whether or not it is valuable. It also might be useful to know what kind of duck or ducks they have next door, in case you want to avoid duplicating the Joneses, or just want to keep up with them.
To the Dude (and on the state level), it seems important to know what databases…ahem, electronic collections, that libraries subscribe to, and to know how many times they might be used. When looking at something like Freegal or Zinio, the number of uses seems simple – each downloaded item counts as a single use. It gets much more complicated when discussing other electronic collections such as Ebsco or Mango Languages, because you don’t want to count each search as a use. It seems more relevant to count each log-in as a session. Someone logs in for a half-hour to work on Mango Languages? Count it as one use. Someone spends an hour on Ebsco, count it as a use. Well, technically and if possible from the reporting scheme, you could count each article downloaded as a use. 1 download = 1 use. If you count the download as a use, don’t double count the session as a use.
So this year, while you will report the number of local electronic collections (and we will prefill the number available via NebraskAccess) there will be a question that asks to list the names of the electronic collections you subscribe to. Note that you don’t include collections that are freely available on the web. There will be an optional question that will allow you to report the number of uses. This will be set up as a “repeating group”. In other words, you can enter “Zinio” for the electronic collection and then enter the number of times it was used. Next, you can add another electronic collection (group) and the number of uses. If you don’t have the data for the number of uses, you can just list the database titles (e.g. Zinio, Mango Langauges, Tutor.com, etc.). You could also enter the number of uses for one but not another (e.g. Freegal may be easier to report useage than Ebsco). Now, don’t get bent out of shape, the number of uses is optional. If you don’t know or you didn’t collect the data, enter N/A and a note in the note field that says “not collected” or “data not available”.
You should note that this applies to things that are kept by the library patron. Things that are returned (e.g. eBooks that are “returned”) are reported in a different area, covered in last week’s blog post,
Reporting Electronic Stuff Pt. 1. Shaka.
