Category Archives: Information Resources

Shaka. The purpose of today’s post is to let you know about a new basic public library survey and Bibliostat™ guide that has been posted on the NLC website. If you are new to the IMLS public library survey or are looking for a brief refresher, this is a good place to start. Bibliostat™ is the data collection tool that Nebraska currently uses to collect data for the public library survey. States are free to use whatever method they choose; in Nebraska it is Bibliostat™. The aforementioned guide also has a bit of background about the public library survey, as well as the basic Bibliostat™ navigation. You can also print a copy of the survey and instructions from the data services section of the NLC website. This may help you to compile some of the data ahead of time, instead of scrambling around at the last minute. As always, if you have questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

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.

One of the difficult parts of the annual public library survey has not just been what to count, but where to report what is counted. This is true for reporting revenue, expenditures, staffing, and other things, but the focus here today is where to count electronic stuff. While it is relatively easy to count print materials (books and serials), audio physical materials (CD’s and playaways), and video physical materials (DVD’s or VHS for the old skoolers), counting the downloadable versions of those items and other electronic things becomes a bit trickier.

More and more often libraries are offering online access to things, including language and other educational courses, music and video downloads, downloadable magazines, and others. Now, when considering reporting these types of things, the key element here is to first ask this question: Is the electronic stuff checked out and returned (even if the return is that it magically disappears from your device after a set checkout period)? If so, then most of the time these are reported under one of three holdings categories on the survey: (1) eBooks; (2) Audio Downloadable Units; or (3) Video Downloadable Units. These are all reported on your survey in section 4, Library Services. The kicker here is that if you report these electronic items in the holdings part of the survey (section 4), you also need to report the number of times they are used (circulation), in section 5, Library Services, and vice versa.  This represents a slight change in the data element definition in previous years, due to a vote by state data coordinators. Example: You report x number of OverDrive holdings, and x number of circulations. It gets tricky when we consider content that has a set circulation period but the library doesn’t select the items available to the user. Hoopla would be a good example of this, where the library pays for access to the vast quantity of items in the Hoopla collection, and then pays per item downloaded by the patron. The patron selects the item they want to read, watch, or listen to. This is well known as “patron driven acquisition”, and makes sense in that the library isn’t purchasing things that might sit on the shelf collecting dust or just infrequently used. Now for these things, reporting holdings is a bit tricky because even though the user may have access to millions of items, the library only pays for items that are downloaded or used. In this case, the holdings information can be reported in a reverse-engineered fashion based on the number of uses. You have 10,000 eBooks downloaded in the FY (out of 1.2 million available)? You report 10,000 eBooks held, and 10,000 uses. The Dude doesn’t know any other way to report this. Keep in mind that the important number here is the uses, so don’t get too caught up on the holdings reporting. And this only applies to things that circulate all the way around (e.g. are “returned”)

This post is part 1 of reporting electronic stuff. Part 2 will explain the data element changes for databases, which have been re-named “electronic collections”. Shaka.

Believe it or not, the Dude is working on next year’s public library survey, scheduled to launch around mid-November, 2015. And to those of you who I promised no major changes, I apologize. There will be changes and some will be major. Some will be minor. Before you get bent out of shape, let me explain that some of the major changes will be for the better; clarifying some things that were difficult to understand in the past, pre-filling more data to help you with the survey, and hopefully make your life a bit easier during survey time. For today’s post, the focus is something the Dude read on early literacy; specifically the well known library program called 1,000 Books Before Kindergarten. Many Nebraska libraries offer this program. It’s generally thought to be a passive library program, but nonetheless, you can count it as a children’s program on your survey. If you are looking for more information about the program, read this article about three-year olds Gidget and Jaycee Crocker, from McCook, Nebraska. Most would agree that these are good programs, helping to promote early literacy and familial connections. However, we have no data on these types of early literacy programs. On the next survey, you will be asked how many children’s programs are specifically focused on early learning and literacy (pre-K)? And remember, while we would like you to collect and report the data, if you simply don’t have it this year because you have not yet implemented a mechanism for counting, you can look to the minus 1 (-1), which is entered when the data is not available or not collected. Now, as the Dude pointed out before, the minus 1 isn’t always the desired answer, but sometimes it is the best one. Shaka.