Making Search Engines Notice: An Exploratory Study on Discoverability of DSpace Metadata and PDF Files

Journal of Web Librarianship

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 147-160

  Yang, Le ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

digital collections; digital repository; DSpace; Internet discoverability; metadata indexing; PDF indexing; search engine discovery

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966710036     PISSN: 19322909     EISSN: 19322917     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19322909.2016.1172539     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. K.Arlitsch, Kenning, and P.S.O'BrienPatrick S. 2012. “Invisible Institutional Repositories:Addressing the Low Indexing Ratios of IRs in Google Scholar.” Library Hi Tech 30 (1):60–81. doi:10.1108/07378831211213210.
2. K.Arlitsch, Kenning, P.S.O'BrienPatrick S., and S.McIntyreSandra. 2010. Search Engine Optimization for Digital Collections. http://www.diglib.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/25DLFseo.pdf/ (accessed August11, 2015).
3. F.C.Assisi, Francis C. 2005. Anurag Acharya Helped Google's Scholarly Leap. http://www.indolink.com/SciTech/fr010305-075445.php/ (accessed January16, 2016).
4. J.Beel, Jöran, B.GippBela, and E.WildeErik. 2009. “Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO) Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar and Co.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 41 (2):176–90. doi:10.3138/jsp.41.2.176.
5. B.Callicott, Burton, and D.VaughnDebbie. 2005. “Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar:Testing the Performance of Schoogle.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10 (3–4):71–88. doi:10.1300/J136v10n03_08.
6. M.Coates, Mildred. 2014. “Search Engine Queries Used to Locate Electronic Theses and Dissertations:Differences for Local and Non-Local Users.” Library Hi Tech 32 (4):667–86. doi:10.1108/LHT-02-2014-0022.
7. ComScore. 2011. ComScore Releases September 2011 U.S. Search Engine Rankings. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2011/10/comScore-Releases-September-2011-US-Search-Engine-Rankings/ (accessed August11, 2015).
8. A.Dawson, Alan, and V.HamiltonVal. 2006. “Optimising Metadata to Make High-Value Content More Accessible to Google Users.” Journal of Documentation 62 (3):307–27. doi:10.1108/00220410610666484.
9. J.M.Drewry, Josiah M. 2007. Google Scholar, Windows Live Academic Search and Beyond:A Study of New Tools and Changing Habits in ARL Libraries. https://ruby.ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/3310.pdf/ (accessed January16, 2016).
10. Google. 2015. How Google Search Works. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/708-97?hl=en (accessed March5, 2016).
11. A.Hagans, Andy. 2005. High Accessibility is Effective Search Engine Optimization. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/accessibilityseo/ (accessed August11, 2015).
12. D.Lewandowski, Dirk. 2010. “Google Scholar as a Tool for Discovering Journal Articles in Library and Information Science.” Online Information Review 34 (2):250–62. doi:10.1108/14684521011036972.
13. P.Mayr, Philipp, and A.-K.WalterAnne-Kathrin. 2007. “An Exploratory Study of Google Scholar.” Online Information Review 31 (6):814–30. doi:10.1108/14684520710841784.
14. J.J.Meier, John J., and T.W.ConklingThomas W. 2008. “Google Scholar's Coverage of the Engineering Literature:An Empirical Study.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (3):196–201. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.002.
15. C.Neuhaus, Chris, E.NeuhausEllen, A.AsherAlan, and C.WredeClint. 2006. “The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar:An Empirical Study.” Portal:Libraries and the Academy 6 (2):127–41. doi:10.1353/pla.2006.0026.
16. I.A.Shoukat, Ijaz Ali, M.IftikharMohsin, and A.HaseebAbdul. 2011. “Indexing Size Approximation of WWW Repository with Leading Information Retrieval and Web Filtering Robots.” International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science 2 (3):71–75.
17. L.Yang, Le. 2016. “Metadata Effectiveness in Internet Discovery:An Analysis of Digital Collection Metadata Elements and Internet Search Engine Keywords.” College and Research Libraries 77 (1):7–19. doi:10.5860/crl.77.1.7.