Library Annual Statistics: What counts?

3. Library Building Entrances 600,000 500,000 400,000 Johns Hopkins Univ 300,000 Univ of California, San Francisco Univ of Michigan 200,000 Univ of Pennsylvania Univ of Washington 100,000 - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

4. Collection Expenditures per Faculty Member Top 5 NIH Funded Institutions $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 Johns Hopkins Univ $800 Univ of California, San Francisco $600 Univ of Michigan Univ of Pennsylvania $400 Univ of Washington* $200 $- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *# of faculty based on 2001 data

5. 2011-12 Help Transactions - 36,654 Circ Desk (Parn) Info Desk (Parn) Circ/Info Desk (MB) Special Collections Learning Technologies Group General E-Reference Tech Commons Collection Management Librarian Consults Tobacco & DIDA

6. % Journals - electronic vs. print 101% 100% 0.22% 1% 100% 1% 1% 2% 99% Print Journals 99% Electronic Journals 99.78% 99% 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 97% 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-12 2011-12

7. Interlibrary Loan Transactions 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Borrowing Requests Received Lending Requests Received Items Borrowed Items Lent

8. 2011-12 Page Views of Digital Collections - 1.4M Legacy Tobacco Digital Library UCSF History site Japanese Prints Synapse collection Digital photo collection DIDA UCSF California Cultures objects Homeopathy collection

9. 2011-12 Digital Collection Views non-LTDL - .1M UCSF History site Japanese Prints Synapse collection Digital photo collection DIDA UCSF California Cultures objects Homeopathy collection

10. Page Views of other Library Websites 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Library Website 1,684,365 1,247,925 1,834,721 Library Mobile site 3,450 8,885 30,069 Moodle (since October) 6,289,648

11. Library Visits 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Library website visits Building visits 1,000,000 500,000 - 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

12. From flickr by bcymet

Hinweis der Redaktion

Or… Who’s counting…? Many many staff – staff at all our service points, collection management staff BIG TIME, staff running services and programs, like Tobacco Documents Library staff, ILL, Learning Technologies Group, archives, Web team, financial, building… I could go on.I can’t really think of anybody on our staff who does not have some responsibility for what ends up showing up in these statistics.Show AAHSL annual report. -2 big reports- for UC so they know what all the libraries are doing. Used for…??Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries produces this report each year showing what all the academic health sciences libraries in US and Canada are reporting. We use it to benchmark ourselves against other institutions. Helps with budgetary issues to see what comparable institutions are able to provide as far as collections etc. Helps develop standards.http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_is_for_home/3707580179/sizes/z/in/photostream/
Incomplete picture. Does not tell the whole story – not EVERYTHING collected. We all try our best to remember to count and track things, but some things slip through the cracks and some things are just very difficult to count. But still provides some interesting insights into what we are doing.http://www.flickr.com/photos/domesticat/2794200489/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Let’s switch gears. Here is how we stack up against our peers. This graph shows building entrances. That’s us the red line. What do we see. We are on top. Yay. Feels good, right?What else? We just had a significant increase. We don’t have the 2011-12 data for the others yet, so we don’t know, but I suspect we are unusual in this regard. And we can relate it to the fact that we now have a constant stream of people coming into our building to use the classrooms and other facilities on the 2nd floor.But this is one of those apples and oranges kind of things. We are the only library for our institution. At these other places, there are more than one library, so maybe the health science library is not where people go to visit and collaborate and study. There is another library that is more conducive to that. The numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Here is another way we can use the data that is collected across institutions.Here we are looking at how much each institution spends on collections PER faculty member.Here we are low. So either we are not spending very much money compared to these other places or we have a lot of faculty, or both. I think it is probably both. But this is a good graph to show campus leadership to get them thinking that maybe we should be getting more funds to go towards collections.
Circ Desk = 17,363 48%Info Desk = 6,603 18% combined = 77%MB desk = 4,114 11%Next 3: Spec Collections, LTG, General Reference - ~ 2,000REMEMBER: apples and oranges – a mix of short help questions 5-15 minutes as well as longer consultations; different ways to slice this pie; I tried to do it by the group providing the service, but there is some overlap in groups so not perfectLibrarian consults = 358, average time spent = 1 hour
Here’s a breakdown of print only journals versus electronic. I only show the top part of the 100% because otherwise we’d have tall red bars with little slivers of blue at the top. Because you can see that our print-only journal titles are down to only .22% of our journal collection. That numbers is now 83, down from 2007-082008-092 009-102010-122011-12Print Journals21814515812783E Journals12,10413,06816,80418,18737,074
Borrowing = we don’t have something and someone asks us to borrow it from someone elseLending = someone wants something we have and we loan it to themTrends: Increasing requests from other institutions who want us to lend them things they don’t have – dark red bar getting bigger. And this year we were able to loan about 70% of those requests. Why would we not loan them? We end up not having the item, someone at UCSF is using the item, we were going to charge them (outside of UC) and they said ‘no thank you, I don’t need it so bad after all”Request to borrow from other librarians – unclear – dipped down, but then came back up. Could mean that we have more people doing research in areas we don’t cover. Could also mean it has gotten easier to figure out how to request items from other libraries. We have been able to fulfill about 80% of those requests. In these cases, we are dependent on other libraries, so Azar works to make sure the request gets to a library that has the item and is willing to lend it. Sometimes people decide they don’t want to wait, or if it will cost money.
Page views – each time a page on these websites gets visited by someone, it gets counted.This slide groups together the various digital collections that we have, with the really big one being the Legacy Tobacco Digital Library.So of these 1.4Million page views of these collections, about 1.3 million were of the LTDL site.So what does a pie look like that is made up of just this multicolored slice at the top? The other .1 million or 100,000
It looks like this. So the UCSF History Site – which some might not consider a collection, but it is kind of a curated historical content. Japanese Prints, Drug industry documents archiveThe history site is a little over half of the views, with Japanese prints and Synapse coming next. Views of the Synapse archives has almost doubled since last year. Japanese prints went up slightly but last year’s use was about double the year before.
Here, if we look at how it is trending, we can see that the Library website got a bump up this year. It had dipped down, but it is back up.Library Mobile site is growing significantlyMoodle – we don’t know because we just started using Google analytics on it in October 2011.These data don’t really tell us much. Can learn more by really drilling down using Google analytics to look at things like when are people visiting the site, how long do they stay, specifically which pages do they view most and that type of thing.
Earlier we looked at numbers of people entering the building. Here is a slide the combines that with the library website visits. We all know that many people use library services without ever visiting the building. And even without ever going to the Library website. Still a lot we don’t know about the story behind these numbers. We can find out a lot more from Google analytics about he website visits – how long did they stay, what parts did they visit most. It’s harder to find that out for the library.
my second caveat is to take all this with a grain of salt – or teaspoon.These numbers are not perfect. As I already mentioned they don’t tell the full story. Lead into slide about website usage. I have a few slides about views of various websites. Collected in different ways across sites; collected differently in different years… Imperfect.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bcymet/6953987884/sizes/l/in/photostream/