37
Invisible Ins*tu*onal Repositories: Addressing the Low Indexing Ra*o of IRs in Google Scholar by Transforming Metadata Schema Kenning Arlitsch & Patrick OBrien October 31, 2011 2011 Fall DLF, Baltimore, MD

Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

At the DLF Forum in 2010 we gave a general presentation about search engine optimization for digital repositories. In that presentation we revealed some new and surprising information about Google Scholar harvesting requirements, and how they affect institutional repositories’ visibility in the GS index. We learned, for instance, that the Webmaster Inclusion Guidelines for Google Scholar cautions us to “use Dublin Core only as a last resort” for metadata tags. One reason for instruction this is that Dublin Core cannot represent publication citation information very well. We have also learned that getting indexed in Google Scholar results in higher ranking for that same item in Google’s main index. Working with OCLC, we have continued to research SEO practices for Google Scholar as well as for the main Google index, and that research has resulted in a book contract with Neal-Schumann. We also gave a similar presentation at CNI last spring: http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/ir-main,60502. In this year’s research update we offer a solid set of practices that can be applied broadly to institutional repositories to improve the percentage of items that are indexed by Google Scholar.

Citation preview

Page 1: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Invisible  Ins*tu*onal  Repositories:  Addressing  the  Low  Indexing  Ra*o  of  IRs  in  Google  Scholar  by  Transforming  Metadata  Schema  Kenning  Arlitsch  &  Patrick  OBrien  October  31,  2011  2011  Fall  DLF,  Baltimore,  MD  

Page 2: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Today’s  Objec*ves  

u Discuss  Marriott  Library  SEO  program  v Program  Priorities  &  Results    v  Issues  &  Opportunity  v Google  Scholar  

Page 3: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

MarrioE  Library  SEO  program  priori*es  

u Digital  repositories  vs.  general  websites  v Millions  of  objects  in  databases  v  Include  IR  

u  Priority  1  –  Increase  Reach  v Get  objects  indexed  in  search  engines  

u  Priority  2  –  Increase  Visibility  v Provide  robust  descriptive  content  

Page 4: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Collec*on  Google  Index  Ra*os  have  increased  across  the  board…  

100%  

74%  

87%  

51%  

37%  

12%  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

High**  

Average  

07/05/10   04/04/11   10/16/11  

Google Index Ratio - All Collections*

* Google Index Ratio = URLs submitted / URLs Indexed by Google for about 150 collections containing ~170,00 URLs **Highest index ratio achieved for Collections with over 500 URLs submitted to Google

Page 5: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

…increasing  Google  referrals  by  200%  and  total  visitors  by  79%.  

12 week year-over-year

Page 6: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

However,  Google  Scholar  Index  Ra*os  ??  

Google Scholar Index Ratio

0% You can find Marriott IR papers in Google now, but can

not find them in Google Scholar. Why?

Page 7: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Today’s  Objec*ves  

u Discuss  Marriott  Library  SEO  program  v Program  Priorities  &  Results    v  Issues  &  Opportunity  v Google  Scholar  

Page 8: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

College  Students  Begin  Research  -­‐  2005  

Page 9: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

DeRosa,  Cathy,  et  al.  “Perceptions  of  Libraries,  2010:  Context  and  Community:  A  Report  to  the  OCLC  Membership”,  OCLC,  2010.  

College  Students  Begin  Research  -­‐  2010  

Page 10: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Start  with  the  800  pound  gorilla  –  Google.  

Page 11: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

MarrioE  Library  Management  Experiences  

u  Large  digital  collections  built  over  a  decade  v 1.3+  million  items  

u Why  weren’t  we  getting  indexed?  v Harvesting/indexing  rates  as  low  as  8%  v Non-­‐existent  IR  showing  in  Google  Scholar  

u  Sitemaps  generated  for  Google    

Page 12: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

MWDL  Repositories  Survey  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

Utah  State  Library  University  of  Nevada,  Las  Vegas    Health  Education  Assets  Library    

Weber  State  University    Utah  Valley  University  Utah  State  University    Utah  State  Archives    

Utah  State  University    Brigham  Young  University    Southern  Utah  University    

University  of  Utah    University  of  Nevada,  Reno  

Utah  Digital  Newspapers  Repository  

%  w/  Indirect  URL  

October 2010

Page 13: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

MWDL  Repositories  Survey  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

Utah  Digital  Newspapers  Repository  Utah  State  Archives    Utah  State  Library  

Southern  Utah  University    Health  Education  Assets  Library    

Weber  State  University    Brigham  Young  University    

Utah  Valley  University    University  of  Nevada,  Las  Vegas    

Utah  State  University    University  of  Utah    

Utah  State  University    University  of  Nevada,  Reno    

%  w/  Direct  URL  

October 2010

Page 14: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Literature  Lessons  

u Most  are  dated  u Most  deal  with  general  websites  u  Few  deal  with  digital  collections  in  db’s  u  Some  suggest  duplicating  the  content  outside  the  database  

Page 15: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Today’s  Objec*ves  

u Discuss  Marriott  Library  SEO  program  v Program  Priorities  &  Results    v  Issues  &  Opportunity  v Google  Scholar  

Page 16: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Why  does  Google  Scholar  MaEer  ??  

u  “researchers  find  Google  and  Google  Scholar  to  be  amazingly  effective”  and  accept  the  results  as  “good  enough  in  many  cases”  (Kroll  &  Forsman  2010)    

u  “broader  awareness  of  specialized  Google  tools  such  as  Google  Scholar  and  Google  Book  among  faculty  members  and  graduate  students”  (Rieger  2009)    

u  “the  amount  of  qualified  scholarly  content  has  increased  considerably  in  Google  Scholar  since  it  was  launched  in  2004  (Mikki  2009)  

u  4%  -­‐  27%  use  increase  in  four-­‐year  U  Miss  study  (Herrera  2010)  

Page 17: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  baseline  

4%  

23%  

0%  

12%  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

Board  of  Regents  

UScholar  Works  

ETD  2  

ETD  1  07/05/10  

11/19/10  

10/16/11  

Google Index Ratio

*Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 18.33% (1,188/6,482)

Page 18: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  baseline  

4%  

23%  

0%  

12%  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

Board  of  Regents  

UScholar  Works  

ETD  2  

ETD  1  07/05/10  

11/19/10  

10/16/11  

Google Index Ratio

Google Scholar Index Ratio

0% *Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 18.33% (1,188/6,482)

Page 19: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Low  GS  indexing  ra*os  cut  across  ins*tu*ons  

3%  

6%  

10%  

12%  

13%  

13%  

16%  

17%  

18%  

28%  

29%  

34%  

34%  

38%  

40%  

47%  

56%  

60%  

60%  

89%  

UW  -­‐  ResearchWorks  Archive  

Univ  of  Rochester  Research  

CaltechAuthors  

D-­‐Scholarship@Pitt  

Columbia  Univ  -­‐  Academic  

IU  Scholarworks  

Texas  A&M  Repository  

UW  Madison  -­‐  Minds@UW  

eCommons@Cornell  

Harvard  Univ  -­‐  DASH  

Univ  of  Oregon  -­‐  Scholars  Bank  

Michigan  -­‐  Deep  Blue  

BYU  Scholars  Archive  

IUPUI  Scholar  

Cornell  -­‐  Digital  Commons@ILR  

Cornell  -­‐  arXiv  

Aquatic  Commons  

Virginia  Tech  -­‐  CS  Tech  Reports  

Digital  Commons@UNLincoln  

Baylor  U  -­‐  BearDocs  

0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%  

Google  Scholar  Indexing  Ratio  for  Selected  Institutional  and  Disciplinary  Repositories  October  2011  

Page 20: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Survey  Methodology  Key  Points  

u  Selected  from  OpenDOAR  v Only  IRs  from  the  U.S.  

n  “Pure”  institutional  or  disciplinary  repositories  v Different  software  types  

n DSpace,  Digital  Commons,  EPrints,  IR+,  CONTENTdm,  DigiTool,  arXiv  

u  Calculated  total  items  in  each  repository  u  Site  operator  search  

v Site:repositoryURL  v Shows  Approximation  

Page 21: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

GS  “site”  operator  provides  a  close  approxima*on  for  indexing  ra*o  

Page 22: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Repository  so_ware  does  not  appear  to  be  the  deciding  factor  

Repository  Name   Repository  So_ware   Repository  URL   Repository  items   Items  in  Google  Scholar   Indexing  Ra*o  

Boston  College  -­‐  eScholarship@BC   DigiTool   dcollec7ons.bc.edu   1,635   1   0%  

UW  -­‐  ResearchWorks  Archive   Dspace   digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace   11,285   304   3%  

Univ  of  Rochester  Research   IR+   urresearch.rochester.edu   16,184   983   6%  

CaltechAuthors   Eprints   authors.library.caltech.edu   22,000   2,290   10%  

D-­‐Scholarship@PiT   Eprints   d-­‐scholarship.piT.edu   5,888   686   12%  

Columbia  Univ  -­‐  Academic  Commons   Digital  Commons   academiccommons.columbia.edu   4,631   586   13%  

IU  Scholarworks   Dspace   scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace   7,782   1,030   13%  

Texas  A&M  Repository   Dspace   repository.tamu.edu   46,324   7,250   16%  

UW  Madison  -­‐  Minds@UW   Dspace   minds.wisconsin.edu   15,078   2,520   17%  

eCommons@Cornell   Dspace   ecommons.library.cornell.edu   18,544   3,410   18%  

Harvard  Univ  -­‐  DASH   Dspace   dash.harvard.edu   6,193   1,710   28%  

Univ  of  Oregon  -­‐  Scholars  Bank   Dspace   scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui   9,740   2,840   29%  

Michigan  -­‐  Deep  Blue   Dspace   deepblue.lib.umich.edu   66,038   22,200   34%  

BYU  Scholars  Archive   CONTENTdm   scholarsarchive.lib.byu.edu   7,421   2,520   34%  

IUPUI  Scholar   Dspace   scholarworks.iupui.edu   2,109   800   38%  

Cornell  -­‐  Digital  Commons@ILR   Digital  Commons   digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu   14,669   5,880   40%  

Cornell  -­‐  arXiv   Other  (arXiv)   arxiv.org   706,906   330,000   47%  

Aqua7c  Commons   Eprints   aqua7ccommons.org   5,722   3,230   56%  

Virginia  Tech  -­‐  CS  Tech  Reports   Eprints   eprints.cs.vt.edu   983   586   60%  

Digital  Commons@UNLincoln   Digital  Commons   digitalcommons.unl.edu   50,657   30,200   60%  

Baylor  U  -­‐  BearDocs   Dspace   beardocs.baylor.edu   928   829   89%  

Page 23: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Google  Scholar  wants  the  right  metadata  tags  used  consistently  and  accurately.  

"Use  Dublin  Core  tags  (e.g.,  DC.title)  as  a  last  resort  -­‐they  work  poorly  for  journal  papers...”  

-­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  

…  there's  a  good  chance  that  many  of  your  papers  aren't  included  at  all,  because  documents  with  the  same  title  are  often  considered  duplicates.  

-­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  

“…  incorrect  identification  of  references  could  lead  to  exclusion  of  your  papers  from  Google  Scholar  or  to  low  ranking  of  your  papers  in  the  search  results.”  

-­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  

“…the  most  common  cause  of  indexing  problems  is  incorrect  extraction  of  bibliographic  data  by  the  automated  parser  software.    

-­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  

Page 24: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Challenge  is  presen*ng  bibliographic  cita*ons  GS  can  iden*fy,  parse  and  digest  

10/31/11 Thanks for nothing: changes in income and labor force participation for never-married mothers since 1982

3/3content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/ir-main&CISOPTR=824&REC=3

Title Thanks for nothing: changes in income and labor force participation for never-married mothers since 1982University of Utah creator Wolfinger, Nicholas H.Other Creator McKeever, MatthewSubject.Keyword Motherhood; Single Mothers; Income; Population surveys;Subject.LCSH Single mothers

IncomeDescription This study examines whether the changing social and economic characteristics of

women who give birth out of wedlock have led to higher family incomes. Using CurrentPopulation Survey data collected between 1982 and 2002, we find that never-marriedmothers remain poor. They have made modest economic gains, but these have disproportionatelyoccurred at the top of the income distribution. Yet there is no evidence ofa burgeoning class of "Murphy Browns" middle-class professional women who givebirth out of wedlock. Surprisingly, never-married mothers' incomes have stagnated inspite of impressive gains in education and other personal and vocational characteristicsthat should have resulted in greater economic progress than has been the case.These gains cast doubt on various stereotypes about women who give birth out ofwedlock.

Publisher University of UtahDate.Original 2006-07-26Type TextFormat.Extent 370,155 BytesFormat.Medium application/pdfResource Identifier ir-main,824Language engSeries Institute of Public and International Affairs Working PapersRelation McKeever, M. & Wolfinger, N.H. (2006). Thanks for Nothing: Changes in Income and Labor Force Participation for

Never-Married Mothers since 1982. Institute of Public & International Affairs (IPIA), 4, 1-43.Rights Management (c) Matthew McKeever and Nicholas H. WolfingerResearch Institute Institute of Public and International Affairs (IPIA)Department Family & Consumer Studies

SociologySchool / College College of Social & Behavioral ScienceContributing Institution University of UtahPublication Type working paper

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH | ECCLES HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY | MARRIOTT LIBRARY | QUINNEY LAW LIBRARY | DISCLAIMER | COPYRIGHT | CONTACTIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, THE INFORMATION IN THIS SITE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS UPON REQUEST.

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH LIBRARIES, 295 S 1500 E, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84112 | PHONE: 801-581-8558 | FAX: 801-585-3464

Page 25: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

First  step  was  to  begin  aligning  Highwire  Press  with  exis*ng  Dublin  Core  fields  

Page 26: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Google  Scholar  HTML  speak  

Page 27: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Google  Scholar  Pilot  1  tested  importance  of  Metadata  model  

u  6,482  URLs    in  Sitemaps  submitted  via  Google  Webmaster  Tools.  

u  Errors  generated  during  Google  crawls  were  analyzed  and  addressed.      

u  Updated  &  corrected  metadata  for  20  pilot  articles  v Ensured  full-­‐text  PDF  met  GS  inclusion  guideline  requirements.  

v Provided  a  “landing  page”  per  GS  inclusion  guidelines,  containing  links  to  the  20  IR  pilot  papers  that  was  within  a  few  clicks  of  the  home  page.    

Page 28: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  increased  

Google Index Ratio

97%  

98%  

98%  

97%  

47%  

51%  

68%  

69%  

4%  

23%  

0%  

12%  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

Board  of  Regents  

UScholar  Works  

ETD  2  

ETD  1  07/05/10  

11/19/10  

10/16/11  

*October 16, 2011 Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 97.82% (10,306/10,536).

Page 29: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  increased  

Google Index Ratio

97%  

98%  

98%  

97%  

47%  

51%  

68%  

69%  

4%  

23%  

0%  

12%  

0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  

Board  of  Regents  

UScholar  Works  

ETD  2  

ETD  1  07/05/10  

11/19/10  

10/16/11  

*October 16, 2011 Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 97.82% (10,306/10,536).

Google Scholar Index Ratio

0%

Page 30: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

GS  Pilot  2  U*lized  OCLC’s  rela*onship  with  Google  Scholar  

u  19  Papers  in  GS  Pilot  2  v 6  of  7  GS  paper  types  represented  v 19  Full  Text  PDFs  

u  Augmented  CONTENTdm  v.6  v Highwire  Press  Meta  tags  v Browse  By  Year  v Recently  Added  v  College  &  Department  

Google Scholar Index Ratio

62%

Page 31: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

A  Pre-­‐Print  Author  Manuscript  is  not  the  Journal  Ar*cle.  

Meta  Tag    Pre-­‐Print   Journal  Article  1  -­‐  citation_author   Maloney,  Krisellen;  Antelman,  Kristin;  

Arlitsch,  Kenning;  Butler,  John  Maloney,  Krisellen;  Antelman,  Kristin;  Arlitsch,  

Kenning;  Butler,  John  2  -­‐  citation_date   2009   2010  3  -­‐  citation_title   Future  leaders'  views  on  organizational  

culture  Future  leaders'  views  on  organizational  culture  

4  -­‐  citation_publisher   N/A   Association  of  College  &  Research  Libraries  5  -­‐  citation_journal_title   N/A   College  and  Research  Libraries  6  -­‐  citation_volume   71  7  -­‐  citation_issue   4  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   1   322  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   56   347  10  -­‐  citation_doi    11  -­‐  citation_issn  12  -­‐  citation_isbn  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Organizational  culture   Organizational  culture  16  -­‐  citation_technical_report_institution   Uspace  Ins7tu7onal  Repository,    

University  of  Utah  N/A    

17  -­‐  citation_technical_report_number   N/A  18  -­‐  citation_language   en   en  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/

collec7on/uspace/id/10/filename/3.pdf  hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/

uspace/id/16/filename/17.pdf  22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/

collec7on/uspace/id/10/rec/1  hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/

collec7on/uspace/id/16/rec/2  Not Relevant 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 19 - citation_conference_title 20 - citation_inbook_title

Page 32: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

A  minor  nuance  is  the  difference  between  Books  and  Book  Chapters  

Meta  Tag    Book  Chapter   Book  1  -­‐  citation_author   Riloff,  Ellen  M.   Ram,  Ashwin  2  -­‐  citation_date   1999   1999  3  -­‐  citation_title   Information  extraction  as  a  stepping  stone  toward  

story  understanding  Understanding  Language:  Understanding  

Computational  Models  of  Reading  4  -­‐  citation_publisher   MIT  Press   MIT  Press  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   435   1  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   460   519  12  -­‐  citation_isbn   0-­‐262-­‐18192-­‐4   0-­‐262-­‐18192-­‐4  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Information  extraction;  Story  understanding;   Information  extraction;  Story  understanding;  18  -­‐  citation_language   en   en  20  -­‐  citation_inbook_title   Understanding  Language:  Understanding  

Computational  Models  of  Reading  N/A  

21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/uspace/id/9/filename/5.pdf  

22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url  

hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/uspace/id/9/rec/1  

Not Relevant 5 - citation_journal_title 6 - citation_volume 7 - citation_issue 10 - citation_doi 11 - citation_issn 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 16 - citation_technical_report_institution 17 - citation_technical_report_number 19 - citation_conference_title

Page 33: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

ETDs  use  very  different  metadata  tags  

Meta  Tag    PhD   Masters  1  -­‐  citation_author   Rague,  Brian  William   Wu,  Shangduan  2  -­‐  citation_date   2010/08   2010/07  3  -­‐  citation_title   A  CS1  pedagogical  approach  to  parallel  thinking   Electronic  structure  and  transport  property  of  

disordered  graphene  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   1   1  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   234   84  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Computer;  CS1;  Educa7on;  Parallel;  Programming;     Disorder;  Electronic  structure;  Graphene;  Transport  

property;  Electronic  structure;    14  -­‐  citation_dissertation_institution   University  of  Utah,  College  of  Engineering   University  of  Utah,  College  of  Science  15  -­‐  citation_dissertation_name   PhD   MS  18  -­‐  citation_language   en   en  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/

uspace/id/5/filename/19.pdf  hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/uspace/id/0/filename/4.pdf  

22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/uspace/id/5/rec/1  

hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/uspace/id/0/rec/1  

Not Relevant 4 - citation_publisher 5 - citation_journal_title 6 - citation_volume 7 - citation_issue 10 - citation_doi 11 - citation_issn 12 - citation_isbn 16 - citation_technical_report_institution 17 - citation_technical_report_number 19 - citation_conference_title 20 - citation_inbook_title

Page 34: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Working  papers  have  a  unique  combina*on  of  metadata  tags.  

Meta  Tag   Working  Paper  1  -­‐  citation_author   Wolfinger,  Nicholas  H.;  McKeever,  Matthew  2  -­‐  citation_date   2006-­‐07-­‐26  3  -­‐  citation_title   Thanks  for  nothing:  changes  in  income  and  labor  force  participation  for  never-­‐married  

mothers  since  1982  6  -­‐  citation_volume  7  -­‐  citation_issue  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   1  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   43  10  -­‐  citation_doi    13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Motherhood;  Single  Mothers;  Income;  Population  surveys;  16  -­‐  citation_technical_report_institution   Institute  of  Public  &  International  Affairs  (IPIA),  University  of  Utah  17  -­‐  citation_technical_report_number   2006-­‐07-­‐04  18  -­‐  citation_language   en  19  -­‐  citation_conference_title   101st  American  Sociological  Associa7on  (ASA)  Annual  Mee7ng;  2006  Aug  11-­‐14;  Montreal,  

Canada  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/uspace/id/7/filename/21.pdf  22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/uspace/id/7/rec/1  

Not Relevant 4 - citation_publisher 5 - citation_journal_title 11 - citation_issn 12 - citation_isbn 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 20 - citation_inbook_title

Page 35: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Conferece  Ar*cles  may  or  may  not  have  published  proceedings  

Meta  Tag    Conference  Article  1  -­‐  citation_author   Balasubramonian,  Rajeev;  Awasthi,  Manu;  Sudan,  Kshitij;  Carter,  John  2  -­‐  citation_date   2009/02/14  3  -­‐  citation_title   Dynamic  hardware-­‐assisted  software-­‐controlled  page  placement  to  manage  capacity  allocation  and  

sharing  within  large  caches  4  -­‐  citation_publisher   Institute  of  Electrical  and  Electronics  Engineers  (IEEE)  5  -­‐  citation_journal_title   High  Performance  Computer  Architecture,  2009.  HPCA  2009.  IEEE  15th  International  Symposium  on  6  -­‐  citation_volume  7  -­‐  citation_issue  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   250  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   261  10  -­‐  citation_doi     10.1109/HPCA.2009.4798260  11  -­‐  citation_issn   1530-­‐0897  12  -­‐  citation_isbn   978-­‐1-­‐4244-­‐2932-­‐5  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Page  coloring;  Shadow-­‐memory  addresses;  Cache  capacity  allocation;  Data/page  migration  

18  -­‐  citation_language   en  19  -­‐  citation_conference_title   15th  Interna7onal  Symposium  on  High  Performance  Computer  Architecture  (HPCA-­‐15  2009)  [14-­‐18  Feb.  

2009,  Raleigh,  NC,  USA]  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/uspace/id/1/filename/11.pdf  

22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collec7on/uspace/id/1  Not Relevant 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 16 - citation_technical_report_institution 17 - citation_technical_report_number 20 - citation_inbook_title

Page 36: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Ques*ons?  

Kenning  Arlitsch  [email protected]    Patrick  OBrien  www.RevXcorp.com  [email protected]  805.509.2586  

Page 37: Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

Ques*ons?  

Kenning  Arlitsch  [email protected]    Patrick  OBrien  www.RevXcorp.com  [email protected]