Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Snapshot of the U.S. Web Archiving Landscape through the 2013 NDSA Survey Report

1,144 views

Published on

Presentation for the 2014 Archive-It Partner Meeting.

Published in: Internet
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A Snapshot of the U.S. Web Archiving Landscape through the 2013 NDSA Survey Report

  1. 1. A Snapshot of the U.S. Web Archiving Landscape through the 2013 NDSA Survey Report Archive-It Partner Meeting November 18, 2014 “Barrage balloon manufacture...” by Alfred T. Palmer under public domain Content Working Group Nicholas Taylor (@nullhandle) Web Archiving Service Manager Stanford University Libraries
  2. 2. NDSA Web Archiving Survey Working Group Content Working Group Jefferson Bailey Internet Archive / Archive-It Kristine Hanna Internet Archive / Archive-It Cathy Hartman University of North Texas Edward McCain University of Missouri Abbie Grotke Library of Congress Christie Moffatt National Library of Medicine Nicholas Taylor Stanford University
  3. 3. NDSA Web Archiving survey background Content Working Group 2011 • 78 respondents • program info • tools and services • access • policies 2013 • 92 respondents • program info • staff time, metrics, skills, content concerns • tools and services • access and discovery • new discovery options • policies • embargo, social media, robots.txt, resources
  4. 4. Respondent Characteristics “Lego People” by Scoobay under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Content Working Group
  5. 5. Content Working Group less than half repeat respondents 56 33 40 2011 2013
  6. 6. universities still make up most programs Content Working Group College or University 47% Commercial Fed Gov Other 12% State Gov Archive 13% 13% 8% 2% Public Library 2% Museum 3% 2011 College or University 52% Commercial Fed Gov State Gov 13% Archive 15% Other 8% 5% 4% Public Library 2% Museum 1% 2013
  7. 7. Archive-It and SAA top group affiliations group 2011 2013 8% 7% 31% 33% 45% 72% 71% Content Working Group
  8. 8. most programs are fractionally staffed less than 25% FTE Content Working Group 25% FTE 1 to 3 FTE 1 FTE 40-50% FTE 3.5 to 15 FTE
  9. 9. web/archiving tech savviness are key skills Content Working Group 39% 37% 24% 21% 21% 10% 6% 6% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Percentage of organizations
  10. 10. data volume and archive use are key metrics Content Working Group 53% 47% 22% 20% 8% 4% 4% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Volume Usage Cost Quality Buy-in Loss Policy Percentage of organizations
  11. 11. Content Working Group Maturity and Progress “Apple Mouse Evolution” by raneko under CC BY 2.0
  12. 12. programs have matured slightly since 2011 Content Working Group 64% 16% 17% 4% 72% 14% 9% 2% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Active Testing Planning No longer collecting 2011 2013
  13. 13. strong perceptions of progress since 2011 Content Working Group Significant progress 40% Slightly worse off About the same 20% Some progress 36% 2% Much worse off 2%
  14. 14. Content Working Group many new programs since 2011 1 0 3 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 8 6 5 4 6 7 12 19 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Number of organizations
  15. 15. two-thirds of them now use Archive-It Content Working Group 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 1 2 4 2 6 4 1 2 0 1 1 1 3 5 3 4 2 2 5 6 15 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Number of organizations Archive-It Partner as of 2013
  16. 16. Content Working Group Archiving Focus “Ant Farm Media Van v.08 (Time Capsule) in Bellewether at Southern Exposure” by Steve Rhodes under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
  17. 17. more programs are only self-archiving Content Working Group 31% 49% 20% 15% 48% 37% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Archive other sites only Archive both Archive own site only 2011 2013
  18. 18. concern about social media, databases, video Content Working Group 69 65 64 49 40 32 16 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Social Media Databases Video Interactive Media Audio Blogs Art Number of organizations
  19. 19. Content Working Group untapped interest in collaboration 21% 72% 7% 17% 47% 33% 2% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No Not yet, but interested Don't know 2011 2013
  20. 20. “Photocopier” by Joriel "Joz" Jimenez under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Content Working Group Tools and Services
  21. 21. web archiving as a service still most popular Content Working Group 60% 25% 14% 63% 20% 16% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% External In-house Both 2011 2013
  22. 22. data not transferred from service provider Content Working Group 19% 81% 20% 80% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transferred Haven't transferred 2011 2013
  23. 23. increased use of tools supporting W/ARC Content Working Group 24% 76% 38% 62% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Supports W/ARC Doesn't support W/ARC 2011 2013
  24. 24. Content Working Group less granular descriptive metadata 62% 66% 47% 55% 30% 36% 54% 60% 43% 50% 22% 18% 20% 5% 20% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2013
  25. 25. Content Working Group Archiving Policies “Handle With Care” by ServInt under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
  26. 26. most don’t notify or seek permission Content Working Group 42 42 45 17 7 11 14 13 15 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Capture Provide restricted access Provide public access No action Notify Request permission
  27. 27. more conditional handling of robots.txt 22% 21% Content Working Group 38% 33% 8% 55% 8% 16% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Always respect robots.txt Sometimes/conditionally respect robots.txt Never respect robots.txt Don't know 2011 2013
  28. 28. social media archiving policies are uncommon Has social media archiving policy Content Working Group 24% Lacks social media archiving policy 76%
  29. 29. policies based on community practices Content Working Group 54% 40% 25% 11% 5% 5% 7% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other organizations ARL Code of Best Practices Section 108 Study Group Counsel or service provider Oakland Archive Policy Statute Don't know Percentage of organizations
  30. 30. Content Working Group Landscape Summary “Mt Baldy from Box Springs Mountain wi Theodolite” by signal mirror under CC BY 2.0
  31. 31. profile of the average survey respondent • university archive • started in last three years • Archive-It user • ¼ FTE web-savvy archivist • concerned w/ content capture, cost, and use • broad level of description • ambivalent about collaboration “Container” by Glyn Lowe under CC BY 2.0 Content Working Group
  32. 32. Content Working Group maturity and convergence • maturity • 75% cite some or significant progress since 2011 • 38% started programs since 2011 • 8% more programs in active status since 2011 • convergence • 79% using external service providers • 81% devoting ½ FTE or less to web archiving • 67% rely on community practices for policy-making • 13% more using Wayback since 2011
  33. 33. Content Working Group challenges and opportunities • challenges • 53% concerned about data volume growth • 47% concerned about fostering access • more than 73% concerned about content capture • opportunities • 33% interested but not yet involved in collaborations • 76% lack social media archiving policies • less than 23% of archived materials are described
  34. 34. Content Working Group implications and questions • implications • web archiving not (yet) a top institutional priority • demand for ongoing Archive-It technical investment • U.S. web archiving landscape is changing quickly • questions • how to build institutional support? • collaboration with whom and on what? • what’s not being archived? • how well are we curating what we do archive?
  35. 35. Content Working Group Nicholas Taylor @nullhandle “Thank You” by vistamommy under CC BY 2.0

×