[Foundation-l] GLAM-WIKI report

[John at Darkstar]

Aggregated statistics for a complete GLAM is interesting, but it seems
like they ask about usage stats and metadata about individual items.

For example it is _very_ interesting that a otherwise rather anonymous
photo from 1890 from the GallriNOR-collection is used in an article
about Oat that has 1100 page views each day at English Wikipedia. (From
memory, hopefully the correct article) This is probably several orders
more than their own traffic on that photo.

John

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Combine this with aggregated statistics for a particular GLAM and do this
> for any GLAM we have material for. This is not to show the most important
> GLAM but it is to  help them realise and recognise for themselves and for
> their sponsors that we contribute to their social relevance. It helps us
> argue why improved annotations will increase traffic to their website.
> 
> It is absolutely important not to make a competition out of these statistics
> because GLAMS cannot be compared. What is important is that we contribute to
> the visibility of a GLAM and its collection. It is obvious why these
> statistics have to be double checked, because it will be a vital argument in
> releasing material to us and in building a relationship.
> Thanks,
>       Gerard
> 
> 2009/8/13 John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no>
> 
>> I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
>> it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
>> interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
>> image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
>> interesting.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>> Hoi,
>>> Not necessarily. One acronym I learned was KPI, when a GLAM has as a key
>>> performance indicator the number of times a picture is actually accessed,
>> it
>>> may affect the amount of subsidy they get. There is no reason why an
>> image
>>> cannot be made available to the people who want that image on their hard
>>> drive.
>>>
>>> So I mean really there may be more to it.
>>> Thanks,
>>>       GerardM
>>>
>>> 2009/8/12 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> 2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <kat at mindspillage.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
>>>>> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
>>>>> want to let the point slip by. A few:
>>>> The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
>>>> free. l mean, really.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>