NPS Web Catalog Study

Mark Freeman An Analysis of Users of the National Park Service Web Catalog Summary A Web survey was placed on the National Park Service web catalog website in October 2013 to investigate user segmentation. The survey ran for a month, gathering 39 responses. Segmentation categories followed earlier studies, with the addition of a further sub-division by category for researchers. The results show that educators are not using the site, though it was not possible to see if it was being used by K-12 students. Historians were the majority of the research users of the site. The study is part of a larger analysis of website visitation, and will provide a guide for website changes and benchmark data for future studies. This paper was written as part of a course requirement for the University of Tennessee Information Science Masters program in the School of Communications. The class was 565 Digital Libraries and the paper was reviewed by Dr. Awa Zhu, whose helpful suggestions form part of the final draft. Information from this survey has also been presented to the National Park Service Museum Management Program. Introduction The National Park Service (NPS) web catalog presents the collections of national parks and historic sites. In 2002, the NPS Museum Management Program developed the first iteration of the web catalog, providing public access to textual museum records, as well as associated digital images. In doing so they were following a trend of cultural institutions moving from descriptive websites to sites that included dynamic collections content. In 2008 the National Academy of Public Administration’s (NAPA) Report, “Saving Our History: A Review of National Park Cultural Resource Programs,” stated the following: “The Panel recommends that NPS make public search tools more user friendly.” At this point, traffic at the web catalog site was considered low, and participation from parks limited, with only 30 parks, from a pool of 365, submitting objects to the site. Knowledge of the NPS park collections was low, a point emphasized in user testing of the new website design – many of the testers didn’t know the NPS had collections; they thought of the National Park Service as composed of places, not things. In fact the NPS has huge holdings. The total collections are over 135 million items. The potential for the web catalog is a more modest 84 million because of uncataloged items, with 52 million objects designated as archives, which mean they may not be cataloged at the item level. The remaining 32 million objects are split across a number of distinct disciplines: archives, archeology, biology, ethnology, geology, history, and paleontology. Individual parks decide whether to make their objects available on the web catalog, a decision based largely on their resources, and they decide which of their objects to put online. In December 2011, the NPS website was re-launched, following an extensive redesign undertaken through a co-operative agreement with the University of Tennessee and the NPS. The site currently shares 2 million objects, and 14 million archival records, including all of the diversity of subject areas. As noted by Hamma (2004 Introduction) “There is no such thing as a general visitor, no such thing as someone just browsing through the on-line collections.” This is undoubtedly true of the web catalog site. For the site redesign, it was hoped that K-12 students and teachers would use the site for school projects. A secondary audience of park visitors, or people planning a trip, was also considered, with one goal for the site being to increase public awareness of the parks’ collections. NPS employees, and then 1 researchers, were next on the list of intended audiences. These different publics were all considered in the website re-design. Cultural (rather than natural history) objects were prioritized in the search, and emphasis was given to presenting objects within a broader context of park information and collection highlights (mini-exhibits). It was hoped that this approach would make the collections more useful for website visitors coming to the site without specific information needs. The site can be assessed since the redesign using simple statistics—number of visitors, page view, hits (information based on server weblogs). Site visitation for the web catalog has jumped from 400 visits per month to 4700 visits. This includes 1700 unique visitors per month (previous numbers unavailable). Site traffic varies during the year, with the summer being quieter. More people look at the site at the beginning of the week and Saturday has been the day showing the fewest visitors. The length of site visits has increased from three minutes per visit, to six and a half minutes. These statistics provide evidence that the new site is an improvement over the old. Additionally tracking of search terms and the ability to see the records subsequently viewed has been added (and an analysis of these data is planned), but it remains difficult to know who is looking at the website, and how well it is serving its visitors. Without a clear idea of who has been using the site, it is difficult to optimize the design for multiple audiences, and to know who the site is not reaching. To narrow this knowledge gap, an online survey was placed on the website in October 2013. Over a four week period, website visitors answered three simple questions relating to the reason for their site visit. This survey was based on previous museum studies, but also designed for the particular nature of the NPS collections. LITERATURE REVIEW/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK There have been many studies examining the audience for museums and digital collections: Sarraf (1999); Goldman and Schaller (2004); Marty (2007); Marty (2008); Peacock and Brownhill (2007); Fantoni, Stein and Bowman (2012). Museums, and indeed all website owners, realized that the base web statistics - number of visitors, pages views, hits – provide only the broadest sense of website visitation. A survey by Sarraf (1999) provided an early examination of museum website visitors. The survey was web based, though not placed in a specific website but promoted through newsgroups and Listservs. While the demographics of web users have changed since her study, her report pointed to an older age group (60% of respondent were over 30), with 64% of respondents female, and 81% having some college level education (Sarraf, 1999, p. 239). She examined visitor occupation, rather than motivation for a specific visit, recording 27% of visitors as museum professionals, 18% as students and 12% as educators. Sarraf also looked at why people were coming to museum websites with 17% recorded as looking for research information – showing a research category among users, whether professionally, or for personal use. The use of museum websites for research was validated by Marty (2007), who conducted an online survey of 1200 web visitors through promotion at nine different online museums. This wasn’t a pop-up survey, but one structured more formally outside of the participating museum web pages. His questions were focused on looking at the relationship between visits to physical museums and their websites, asking questions about attitudes before and after museum visitation. His particular relevance to this study is in showing that 69% of survey respondents were either likely, or very likely, to use online images of artifacts/collections data in their daily lives, and 54% were likely, or very likely, to use online research materials/archives (Marty, 2007, p. 348). This suggests a strong audience for at least informal research. 2 Marty also notes the limitations of the online survey method (low response rate, self-selecting group), though he perhaps underplays the notion that such surveys reach only existing, rather than potential audiences (p. 344). Goldman and Schaller (2004) sought to understand both user motivation in visiting the websites and subsequent satisfaction with their website experience. They used a web survey, activated though a popup box presented on a number of different museum websites. They looked at both self-efficacy (how comfortable people felt in trying tasks), and how well expectations of the site were met. Again, the problems with web surveys were acknowledged by the authors and their survey included response rates of between 1-3%, making extrapolation of data to a broader context difficult. What their survey did include however was a breakdown by audience type. Teachers made up 23.9% of their sample and students 53.6%. However it should be noted that student was a self-selecting category and included people in all age groups. A more holistic approach to understanding audience was taken by Peacock and Brownhill (2007). Their paper commented on the limitations of existing visitor studies, and suggested a broader approach that examined four paradigms commonly used in trying to understand visitors: audience and visitor studies, marketing, product evaluation, and usability analysis. From their analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, they split website visitors into four segments: Browsers: defined as those accessing the website as part of general browsing Visitors: defined as those using the website prior to a visit to the physical museum Searchers: defined as those using the website for specific research Transactors: defined as those using the website for financial transactions The study also notes that they are “segment[ing] existing users rather than segmenting the market, which includes those who don’t use museum Web sites, a much larger group” (Peacock & Brownhill, 2007, Use of Segmentation). Web-based surveys are presented to existing users, but it is important to consider the audience that is not being reached by the survey. The research by Peacock and Brown was further explored by Fantoni, Stein and Bowman (2012) through the results of two museum website surveys. They first used open-ended questions to determine people’s motivations in coming to the Indianapolis Museum of Art website. From this they determined five categories of motivation: Plan a visit to the museum Find specific information for research or professional purposes Find specific information for personal interest Engage in casual browsing without looking for something specific Make a transaction on the website It can be seen that these categories, in this case coming from visitors themselves, closely match those of Peacock and Brownhill. The differentiation between professional and personal research is an interesting distinction, though how people may use these categories is unclear. The value in this form of user segmentation is in the way it suggests improvements to website design. For different types of users, site structure, language, and the importance of visual elements are likely to vary in importance. Personal interest searchers may place less emphasis of faceted searching than professional researchers. Fantoni, Stein and Bowman were able to use Google analytics to subsequently track these defined user segments to see how they moved through the site and what areas of the site they used. 3 Combining, or aggregating, these studies is difficult. The researchers had different research questions, different methodologies, and the studies happening over a period of twelve years. The table below is meant to act merely as a summary of some of the results from the papers outlined above. Searchers Visitors % Browsers % Students % Teachers % Museum % Researchers% Sarraf1 2.6 67 18 12 27 17 Goldman2 4 54 24 Marty3 80 58 48 Peacock4 23 16 48 Fantoni5 50 10 37 (16% professional 21% personal) 20 60 Visitor segmentation by percentage from different website visitation studies. Studies in chronological order. 1. Conflated information from more than one survey question (Sarraf, 1999). 2. Information extrapolated from multiple questions (Goldman & Schaller, 2004). 3. Looks at non-exclusive interest in website offerings, aggregated before and after a museum visit taken from likely/very likely responses. Student % was inferred (with low precision) from interest in educational materials (Marty, 2007) 4. The fourth demographic from Peacock and Brownhill was transactors (14%) (Peacock & Brownhill, 2007). 5. Fantoni also noted the transactor demographic (3%) (Fantoni, Stein & Bowman, 2012). RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY In designing questions for the NPS web catalog site it was important to take into consideration some of the defining characteristics of the site. While many museums have a variety of objects, the NPS web catalog has relatively large and diverse collections. Since the 2011 re-launch of the website, the number of participating parks has risen to 90, and the number of objects online has risen to over two million objects. The distribution of objects largely mirrors the overall collections, though proportionally biology specimens are underrepresented on the web catalog. Items Object Class Archives Archeology History Web catalog count % on web catalog* % in overall collections* 14,094,858 1,965,512 86 84 205,744 9 7.4 4 Art 5,302 >1 >1 Ethnology 2,164 >1 >1 Paleontology 46,420 2 1.4 Biology 36,113 1.6 6.75 Geology 7,175 >1 >1 16,363,288 100 100 Total *Since archival counts were disproportionally high, and don’t reflect individual objects, they were not included in percentages The type of material included on the site clearly influences the potential audience. Archeology forms the largest group of material, and its composition includes both historical and prehistoric material. However the utility of the archeology information is strongly affected by the removal of location and contextual information, because of concerns about looting. This likely affects the use of this material by archeologists. Similarly the location and locality information is removed from the natural history records, making these records of limited use for scientific research. Currently, while faceted search is available, it is not optimized for natural history collections. For a limited number of archival records, Finding Aids are available on the site, but they are not promoted through the search or site navigation. In order to better understand the usefulness of the different object classes the survey needed to quantify not just a “searcher” category, but also the type of researchers using the material. Accordingly, a web survey was placed on the site to ask visitors why they had come to the site. The categories used reflect the breakdown of user motivations summarized in earlier studies – visitor, browser, searcher, transactor. However two changes were made. First, the transactors’ category was ignored, since there are no commercial aspects to the site. Transactors can be understood to include those visitors that come to the site to save images, rather than just undertake financial transactions but this was considered secondary, rather than primary motivation. Second, the web catalog site has some particular characteristics that required a deeper understanding of the searcher demographic, so this category was further segmented into research sub-categories to help understand the importance of the collections to different research groups. Before the survey was implemented feedback was requested from the Museum Management Program at the NPS. With their support, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was sought, since the survey involved human subjects. Because of IRB requirements, an initial panel was added to the survey providing some information about the study, and asking that visitors confirm they were over 18 years of age before continuing. Unfortunately, the IRB requirement meant a vitally important demographic was removed from the survey – students under 18. Initially the survey was placed on the web catalog mirror site which is not accessible to the public. It was reviewed for functionality and language by the NPS museum management program staff and consultants, and the survey results were discarded. Finally, the survey was placed on the NPS web catalog (museum.nps.gov) site. The text was included through a combination of jQuery, CSS and html, with the survey box placed through absolute positioning, and initially hidden. This was done to avoid issues with browsers blocking pop-ups, and to make interaction with the survey as simple as possible. The code was applied to just one page on the site - the object detail page which is uses dynamic content to display single objects from the collections. To access this page, a visitor has to follow a link, make a 5 selection from a search query, or look at an object from a collection highlight. In this way visitors reaching the web catalog site unintentionally, or those who leave after reviewing the home page, were not included in the survey - only visitors that were actively engaged in using the site. The script used random number generation to decide whether the survey box should appear. Based on the values shown, 20% of visitors were presented with a survey box. Visitors could close the survey without answering at any point. If they did so, a database record would record only that the survey had been presented. Initial survey page Clicking on “Continue” dynamically changed the text inside the survey through jQuery scripting and css. At this point visitors were presented with the survey questions. The first part asked users to self-identify by profession. Two subsidiary questions asked if the visitor was currently at a National Park, and whether they worked for the NPS. These questions were an attempt to see the mobile usage, as well as recording what segment of the sample were NPS employees (one of the initial design target groups). The survey questions mirrored earlier studies by Fantoni, Stein and Bowman (2012), and Peacock and Brownhill (2007). The questions used radio buttons to record discrete categories for visitors asking: “Is your interest in the web catalog as a:” Casual Browser - corresponding to the casual browser and browser of earlier studies. Current/potential visitor - matching “visitors” and “plan a visit” categories. The site can be used to preview park exhibits, and understand the type of park collections prior to a visit. 6 Student/K-12 - while students were asked to self exclude, this category was left in place to see if the over eighteen prohibition worked. Student (undergraduate) – both this category and educator show use with traditional education roles. Educator – this is a self defining role, but educator was chosen rather than the narrower term “teacher”. Researcher - this group was sub-divided (see below). Other – visitors were able to self-identify as a non-defined group and record their category through an open text box. Researcher was broken down into: Historian Amateur Historian/Collector Archaeologist Natural Scientist Curator These groups reflect in part the categories of information on the site. The split between historian and amateur historian/collector also allowed comparison with earlier studies’ breakdown between research for personal and professional use. It should be noted that the question asked was couched in terms of “your interest in the web catalog” rather than “what is your profession.” The survey attempted to understand, for this website visit, why the visitor had come to the site, rather than their occupation. Web survey questions in situ 7 All values were initially unchecked, and visitors could close the survey without answering. Clicking “Close” recorded the answers in a database user log table. If nothing was clicked before closing, then an empty record was written. Scripting was used to set a browser cookie for anyone who received the survey. Before the random generator was used the presence of the cookie was checked; if present the survey was not shown again, meaning that visitors should not receive the survey twice. While this was not a perfect option (a visitor could potentially receive the survey again on a different computer), without asking for identification this approach seemed acceptable as providing minimal visitor interference. The survey was intended to run for the month of October 2013 (to more easily match other web statistics). Unfortunately, the shutdown of the Federal government during the early part of the month meant the survey could not be started. Instead, data collection started on October 22, 2013 and ran until November 20, 2013. Data were extracted by a simple SQL query and the query results saved to a text file. The resulting text file (comma delimited) was then brought into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. The data are relatively straightforward, and simple bar charts were created for presentation. Limitations of methodology Web surveys typically have a low response rate. This survey ran for a month, generating only 39 responses. The 34% conversion rate, however, compares favorably to other studies and was likely helped by the simplicity of the survey. Additionally, anyone under 18 had to close the survey without answering. All web surveys are self-selecting. People choose whether to answer or not and it is possible that certain type of visitors – perhaps, casual browsers – will be less likely to answer a survey. There could be a bias in the results based on people’s motivation in taking the survey. In the interest of minimizing the amount of text visitors had to read, the terms used in the survey were not explicitly defined. As noted previously, the terminology mirrored the language of earlier web use studies, but it is possible that people understood their roles differently from the survey terms. Visitors were asked, “what is your interest in the web survey,” but through a casual reading, an individual could have answered in terms of his or her primary occupation. A visitor might have been casually browsing the collections, but since, for example, he/she worked as an archeologist, that is how they defined them self in the survey. Finally, and obviously, the survey can only tell us about existing users of the site, rather than the potential audience. A primary issue for site visitation may be that the public is unaware that the National Park collections exist. While this survey can infer information about who isn’t coming to the site, it is intended to be just a part of a larger examination of website users. RESULTS The survey was presented to web catalog visitors 115 times with 39 responses (a response rate of 34%). Breakdown by category is shown below: 8 Category % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Per Percentage of respondents by category What is immediately striking from rom the results is that educator was not selected as a category. categ Considering that educators were ident identified as being a high target group for the site,, their absence is disappointing. It is impossible to know what percentage of non-respondents weree students studen and being unable to see use by K-12 students dents in the survey was a limiting factor in the study. The 13% 13 audience of undergraduates does show some me use for education. The lack of educators is madee more ssurprising when compared to to a limited survey ey that w was conducted on the previous site prior to the re re-launch (Freeman 2010, p. 9-10). In that surve survey, 50% of respondents self identified as educators, cators, with the other 50% being included in research h catego categories. The low response for visitors may be p partly explained by the fact the survey was not available avail through mobile devices, and that the web eb cata catalog site is not currently marketed at parks. The relat relatively low numbers of browsers, compared red to ot other studies, may also suggest that one problem lem of aaudience is that the site isn’t well known. Tracking king (and potentially improving) search engine traffic ic may h help here. Research categories are shown n below: Amateur Hist Archaeologists Historian Curator Other/Archivist Per Percentage of researchers by category 9 The high percentage of historians (42%) did match the earlier survey (44%). One noticeable result was the lack of respondents who identified as natural scientists. There is a concern about the usefulness of the natural history data to scientists. The total natural history content is low (4% of the total site), though a large herbarium collection is soon to be added, and the search tools are not currently optimized for this type of content. Archeologists accounted for 20% of the visitors. The survey also revealed the class of the object that was being looked at when the survey was triggered (see table below) with 19% of objects classified as archeology. A closer examination of the survey showed that archeologists looked at non-archeology objects. So the archeology data was serving a wider audience than other archeologists, but archeologists were not looking at the archeology data. It is possible that the 30% of respondents identifying as “curator” reflect, in part, NPS employees. Thirty percent identified as NPS employees or affiliates. This number seems high, but may reflect this group’s higher motivation to complete the survey. Only 18% of people identified themselves as being on-site. The survey was not placed on the mobile website pages and therefore did not reflect mobile use (though tablets bring up the regular website). However, the number may also reflect the 30% identified as NPS employees and affiliates, rather than current visitors. Object Class 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 When the survey was presented the object class was recorded. History objects were the most viewed (53%). If archives are included in this category, history comprises over 70% of content viewed. A single archival web catalog record can include thousands of archival objects so it is hard to compare the use of archival records (19%) with the huge collections on the site, but usage (17%) suggests that this material has potential for development. As noted previously archeology comprised 19% of objects viewed. Since archeology objects comprise 84% of the total non-archival web catalog collections this number seems low. The low use of natural history data (biology, geology, paleontology) reflects a missing audience and the need to make this material more accessible and useful to web catalog visitors. Access of the total collection object records, by object class, has been collected from April 2013 to December 2013. These numbers largely mirror the figures from the survey. Object Class Numbers 10 % History Art Archives Archeology Ethnology Biology Geology Paleontology 6615 531 1145 1862 358 152 33 250 10946 60.43303 4.851087 10.46044 17.01078 3.270601 1.388635 0.30148 2.283939 100 Again we can see low levels of queries on the scientific data – just under 4% of the total objects viewed. Archaeology is 17%, which can be compared to the 86 % of the web catalog data that is archaeology records. History (60%) forms the largest use of objects, while comprising just 9% of the records on the web catalog. The same data reveals that 14% of the records reviewed were collection highlight records (this statistics based on database records rather than the adjusted count figures noted above). The high percentage of collection highlight records does suggest strong interest in “exhibit” level data, which would be likely associated with teaching and education, though this doesn’t appear to be supported by other data from the survey. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Since the web catalog re-launch in December 2011, the broad increases shown in web statistics provided support for the success of the web catalog redesign. This survey however, provides some questioning of how successful the redesign has been in reaching the intended audiences. Even with the limitations of the survey―the low number of respondents and the limitations of not being able to question K-12 students― the audience reflected in the survey is in inverse proportion to the target audiences of K-12-visitors-NPS employees-researchers. The web catalog remained accessible during the recent federal government shutdown, though no work was performed on the site. One interesting aspect of the shutdown was the prominence of the National Parks as a symbol of the Federal Government. A recent survey (Hart, 2013) showed very strong support for the National Parks across political lines. The survey did not ask about attitudes to NPS collections, perhaps reflecting the low profile they have in the public consciousness. However, collections were touched upon for the final survey question: “71% of voters rate as extremely important (37%) or quite important (34%) the idea of connecting National Parks to America’s classrooms to excite students about learning science, math, civics, and other topics, and help them see how what they learn applies to the real world”( Hart 2013 pp. 13-14). Clearly the K-12, and possibly undergraduate, demographic is seen as a very important audience for the web catalog. The survey data on researcher segmentation is less surprising, though it is clearly worth considering the utility of the natural history data to scientists as it is currently presented. It may be that this data need to also be on scientific websites, to better serve this community. Further dialogue is needed with 11 archeologist, to see how this data can better serve its practitioners. Otherwise, for existing site visitors, adding more quality history data would seem to be valuable. The survey has suggested some of the potential audiences currently under-represented in site visitation. Future site promotion can now target these audiences. Clearly the site needs to do a better job reaching out to K-12 students and teachers. Better linkage from the education sections of the parent NPS.gov site should help. Within the last few weeks there has also been increased promotion through social media – such as Facebook and Twitter – and content is being considered for other social media. Additionally upcoming promotion of a mobile version of the site at parks will hopefully increase site use by park visitors. The results of this survey were provided to the NPS Museum Management Program to serve as a guide for future changes. These are intended to increase overall site visitation, but they are also aimed at certain audience sectors. New searching tools are intended to provide a better faceted search for scientific data, which, it is hoped, will improve access for natural science researchers. A similar change to better expose archival content should make the site more helpful for history researchers. For K-12 and other educational users, teaching materials will be given more prominence on the site, with lesson plans linked to collection highlights, and a new search option made available to list those collection highlights with associated educational content. Villaeesepa and Tillich (2012) point to the need to place metrics in a wider context, suggesting that they need to be placed within wider organizational goals and that measurement become a continuous process. A planned examination of search terms might reveal more about what other types of material people are interested in finding. Web statistics, including newly implemented Google analytics, will be continually monitored and used to place these results in a broader context. This study can also be used as benchmark data for future studies. It is difficult to infer any wider conclusions about digital collections from the multiple studies that have been done on user segmentation. The drop in “browsers” during the studies likely reflects a general trend in web activity; people spend less time wandering the web and more time on sites with which they are familiar. For the web catalog the “visitors” number seems an anomaly compared to other studies, but this can be partly be explained by the web catalog focus on collections, rather than opening hours, or directions. All the studies show a large a segment of website visitors are interested in research, or information about collections and exhibits; hopefully the breakdown on the type of researchers for museum objects may inform later studies, and a follow up study tracking website behavior of these different groups may inform future website design. References Fantoni, S. F., Stein, R., Bowman, G. (2012). Exploring the Relationship between Visitor Motivation and Engagement in Online Museum Audiences. Museums and the Web 2012: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Consulted October 15, 2013. Available at: http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/exploring_the_relationship_between_v isitor_mot.html Freeman, M (2010). Planning for a New Park Museum Management Program website. Unpublished report, National Park Service, Museum Management Program, Washington DC. 12 Haley Goldman, K., Schaller, D. (2004). “Exploring Motivational Factors and Visitor Satisfaction in OnLine Museum Visits.” In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2004: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Consulted October 13, 2013. Available at: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2004/papers/haleyGoldman/haleyGoldman.html Hamma, Kenneth (2004). The role of museums in online teaching, learning, and research. First Monday, 9(5). Consulted October 13, 2013. Available at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/1146/1066 Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion Research (2013). Strong bipartisan support for National Parks. The National Parks Conservation Association and National Park Hospitality Association. Consulted November 28, 2013. Available at: http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/Suvey_Findings_Memo_Final.pdf Marty, P. F. (2007). Museum websites and museum visitors: Before and after the museum visit. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 337-360. DOI: 10.1080/09647770701757708 Peacock, D., Brownbill, J. (2007). “Audiences, Visitors, Users: Reconceptualising Users Of Museum Online Content and Services.” In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Consulted October 15, 2013. Available at: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/peacock/peacock.html Sarraf, Suzanne (1999). A Survey of Museums on the Web: Who Uses Museum Websites? Curator: The Museum Journal 42.3. Blackwell Publishing Ltd Villaespesa, E., Tasich, T. (2012). Making Sense of Numbers: A Journey of Spreading the Analytics Culture at Tate. Museums and the Web 2012. Consulted November 10, 2013. Available at http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/making_sense_of_numbers_a_journey _of_spreading 13 APPENDIX A Survey Introduction Please help us learn more about you. The following survey consists of just three questions and contains no identifying or personal information. It can be completed in under a minute. You’re answers will help us improve the web catalog. You can close the survey at any time without penalty, and no information will be saved. If you have questions about the survey you contact us here [x] I am over 18 Cancel Continue Questions Please help us learn more about you Is your interest in the web catalog as a: Casual browser Current/potential Park Visitor Student (K12 Student (college Educator Researcher Historian Amateur Historian/Collector Archaeologist Natural Scientist Curator [data entry text box provided] Are you currently at a National Park? Do you work for, or affiliated with, the National Park Service? Cancel Continue 14 Survey Results Number of surveys presented Responses 115 39 Response rate of 33.91304 Prof Type Browser Visitor Undergraduate Educator Researcher Other 6 1 5 0 24 3 % 15.38462 2.564103 12.82051 0 61.53846 7.692308 39 100 On-site NPS 5 12.82051 8 20.51282 Researchers Amateur Hist Archeologists Historian Curator Other/Archivist Class Archeology Biology Ethnology Geology History History-Archives Paleontology 1 5 10 7 1 24 % 4.166667 20.83333 41.66667 29.16667 4.166667 100 19 3 5 1 54 19 1 102 % 18.62745 2.941176 4.901961 0.980392 52.94118 18.62745 0.980392 100 Summary of previous surveys and NPS data 1 Sarraf Goldman22 Visitors 2.6 4 Browsers 67 Searchers Students 18 54 15 Teachers 12 24 Museum 27 Researchers 17 20 Marty3 Peacock4 Fantoni5 NPS6 80 23 50 3 58 16 10 15 48 48 37 (16% professional 21% personal) 13 0 (20) 60 61 Visitor segmentation by percentage from different website visitation studies. Studies in chronological order. 1. Conflated information from more than one survey question (Sarraf, 1999). 2. Information extrapolated from multiple questions (Goldman & Schaller, 2004). 3. Looks at non-exclusive interest in website offerings, aggregated before and after a museum visit taken from likely/very likely responses. Student % was inferred (with low precision) from interest in educational materials (Marty, 2007) 4. The fourth demographic from Peacock and Brownhill was transactors (14%) (Peacock & Brownhill, 2007). 5. Fantoni also noted the transactor demographic (3%) (Fantoni, Stein & Bowman 2012). 6. In this study “museum”was taken from a separate question asking NPS affiliation. 16