April 8th, 2008 Brian Herzog
Last month, EBSCO announced they are making their GreenFILE database freely available at http://www.greeninfoonline.com.
According to the announcement message, GreenFILE indexes scholarly and general interest titles, government documents and reports, concerning the ways humans affect the environment in the areas of agriculture, education, law, health and technology. The database contains nearly 300,000 records, including some full text for selected titles.
I added this database to my library’s online resources webpage, but also wanted some more information. I wrote to EBSCO to ask why they are making this available free, and if they have any plans to change this to a subscription database. Here’s the response I received:
GreenFILE is a free database we provide in an effort to facilitate research and understanding on matters concerning human impact on the environment. We also offer a free database called Library Information Science & Technology Abstracts which features content that is free on the web but for your convenience we’ve created a database for it.
Since no login or IP-authentication is required, this is an easy resource on a timely subject to add to a library’s website. More information from EBSCO and The Ipswich Chronicle.
Also, for those who don’t otherwise use EBSCOhost, this database allows a look at EBSCO’s visual search interface.
Tags: database, databases, ebsco, ebscohost, environmental, free, green, greenfile, libraries, Library, online, public, resource See Also
Posted under Library, Resources | No Comments »
April 3rd, 2007 Brian Herzog
I don’t really like being a repeater for products and advertising, unless I think they are helpful. I’ve never used WebFeat before, but from what I know about it, I would love to.
I recently received a marketing email from them, offering a free trial, with a pitch that caught my eye:
…The WebFeat Express 2.0 trial isn’t just a canned demo – you’ll be able to…add your own databases and subject categories…
This is of particular interest to me now. My consortium’s reference committee met last week, and we were told that the directors are looking to cut our database budget. The consortium itself only pays for three databases (NoveList and History Reference Center [HRC], both from ebsco, and Overdrive), and want to do away with one of them.
These are three very different resources, so this alarmed me. So, too, did the way they were being compared to each other. We were given a sheet with the cost for each database, the number of sessions for the Ebsco databases, and the number of audiobooks downloaded in Overdrive. They then divided the usage by the cost, to come up with a per usage dollar figure, and suggested cutting the most expensive one.
The figures came out like this:
| Database |
Total Usage |
Cost Per Use |
| HRC |
3776 |
$6.28/session |
| NoveList |
3697 |
$4.69/session |
| Overdrive |
4342 |
$4.38/checkout |
Now, there’s all kinds of extra information that goes along with this breakdown. But, based on this comparison, it seems like HRC is the most expensive, so we should get rid of it.
My issue with it, though, is that a session is not the same as a checkout. In the ebsco databases, patrons will access the database (a session), search for their keywords (searches), and then read articles (end product). In Overdrive, patrons will access the catalog (a session), search for audiobooks (searches), and then checkout something (end product).
See that subtle difference? In the comparison above, they are looking at sessions in HRC and NoveList, but the end product in Overdrive - the proverbial apples to oranges comparison. To meaningfully compare these three, I think you have to look at sessions across the board, or searches across the board, or end product across the board.
So, they should compare the audiobook downloads in overdrive to the number of articles viewed in the other two - which I think would significantly bring down that cost per use number. This is my statistics rant. Having an undergrad degree in Market Research, I am sensitive to such things.
But back to WebFeat: regardless of the cost per use breakdowns, I think the real problem is that we generally do a poor job of promoting our databases. Most patrons don’t know what “database” means, nor when to use one. And our websites don’t help much. This trial lets us see what searching with WebFeat would be like, with the databases we currently subscribe to.
Which is why a product like WebFeat (and SchoolRooms) is great - it incorporates all of these resources into a patron’s information search without the patron even realizing it. It gives the patron access to information from resources they didn’t know existed, without them having to go out of their way to find it. In the future, I hope library ILS are all designed this way - a single, unified information search.
That should be our bottom line goal, not just bringing down cost per use figures or inflating our database statistics.
database, databases, ebsco, history reference center, libraries, library, novelist, overdrive, public libraries, public library, webfeat, webfeat express, webfeat express trial
Tags: database, databases, ebsco, history reference center, libraries, Library, novelist, overdrive, public libraries, public library, webfeat, webfeat express, webfeat express trial See Also
Posted under Library, Resources, Technology | 1 Comment »
