El.pub Reader Survey Results
Top | Topic News | Event News | News Archive | Projects | Products | Topics | Events | Resource Links and Downloads | Associations | Electronic Journals | Site info | Search | Feedback
Methodology | Main results | Screen resolution | Organisation activity | Country | EU funded project participant | Useful parts of the web site | Website visit frequency | Number of readers | Newsletter length and style | European funding | More analysis | Other comments
A short questionnaire was mailed to the El.pub Weekly e-mail alerter list, a version of which was also posted on the web site for three weeks in January/February 2001. A copy of the questionnaire used (on the web site) is available on the web, and the emailed version is available for download as a zipped text file.
URL: download zipped email questionnaire ftp://ftp.pira.co.uk/users/ket/public/quest3.zip
URL: web questionnaire http://www.elpub.org/quest3.htm
These results are primarily for the survey of newsletter subscribers. Responses to the questionnaire on the web site were low. In the second survey (April 2000) we had a total of 124 responses (web and newsletter), and 93 in the first survey (May 1999). In this third survey we had 145 replies to the newsletter questionnaire (compared with 54 in the second survey) and 5 replies to the web site questionnaire.
This is a very good response and is about 14% of the newsletter addresses. In the first two surveys the newsletter subscribers were given the option of filling in the survey on the web site. In this survey we did not do that as we wished to ask different questions of the newsletter readers. It is clear from the result that in the first two surveys (where the questionnaires were identical) many of the newsletter readers responded via the web. The results for the web site questionnaire are covered in section 13. below.
URL: May 1999 survey http://www.elpub.org/results.htm
URL: April 2000 survey http://www.elpub.org/results2.htm
The non-random nature of the survey means that one should not place too much faith in the detailed results.
The questionnaire was designed to answer a number of questions:
- a) what type of computers do our users have, particularly in relation to PC vs other, Windows OS type, and screen resolution;
- b) what type of people are users: organisation type, country, interests;
- c) user response to the site: recent changes, different information types, difficulties, overall response.
A PC-zipped WinWord copy of the survey can been downloaded by ftp from the URL below.
Jan 2001 April 2000 1024 x 768 and above 65% 58% 800 x 600 29% 32% 640 x 480 5% 5% Dont know 1% 5%
Jan 2001 April 2000 Computer industry 21% 14% Academic 19% 24% Information industry 16% 19% Other commercial 14% 19% Publishing 11% 12% Government 10 % 6 % Entertainment industry 4% not asked Broadcasting 2% not asked Other 1% 5%
The question was changed slightly and people were asked for the principal activity to avoid multiple answers.
Jan 2001 April 2000 EU country 75% 70% North America 8% 20% Other European 8% 4% Asia / Middle East 6% 6% Pacific / Australasia 3% 2% Africa 1%
Jan 2001 May 1999 Yes 26% 33% No 74% 67%
This question was not asked in the second survey. This result probably reflects the greater direct connection between the IESERV concertation project and the projects (through frequent concertation meetings with the projects), and the current awareness project. The result implies that about 300-350 project participants read the newsletter.
Jan 2001 April 2000 News pages 80% 67% Topic information 64% n/a Topic information 64% n/a Project information 48% 47% Product information 48% 51% E-journal information 43% 40% Resource and download pages 32% 40% News archives 36% 36% News archive 30% 33% Educational publishing section 26% n/a Analytic section 25% new 2000 Creative technology section 23% 36% Search engine 20% 27% VR section 10% 12% GI systems section 10% 10% Translation service 6% 6%
Jan 2001 May 1999 Daily 4% 4% Weekly 46% 58% Monthly 30% 23% Less than once a month 17% 9% Never 4% n/a
This question was not asked in April 2000. Note that this is for predominantly newsletter readers and the first survey results are for all respondents (web and newsletter).
Jan 2001 One 75% 2-5 17% 5+ 8%
This is a new question to estimate the number of readers of the newsletter, as opposed to the circulation figure. The results imply that the readership is closer to 1300 than the raw circulation figure of 1000 we recently passed.
Jan 2001 Longer with independent links 17% Current (no change) 68% Short - headlines and links to web site 12% No response 3%
This question was designed to elicit information on whether a longer stand-alone newsletter would be popular. The results are not sufficiently good to make a clear decision. However some other comments implied that a few readers would strongly favour direct links rather than via the web site.
Jan 2001 Pro 63% Anti 34% Non-response 3%
This question was to see whether information on European Electronic Publishing funding opportunities would be popular (as suggested by the first project review). The results are clearly in favour.
Jan 2001 Yes 52% No 41% Non-response 8%
This question was to see whether the result of Analytic was to raise demand for more analysis or not. The results imply that there is a demand but that it needs to be separated from the other material and the newsletter so as to leave those currently happy with an unchanged basic service.
72% did not add any further comments. 21% provided positive comments, 4% negative. 7% provided useful information (the rest were simply that they liked the site). Most of the negative comments related to the problem of links to the web site from the newsletter going out of date after a few weeks as date fades into the archive or wishing for direct links to original sites rather than having to visit the web site.
So far there are 5 responses to the web site questionnaire (2 respondents also read the newsletter). The fact that overall most responses are from newsletter readers no doubt reflects their greater interest in the subject and emphasises the importance of having a parallel newsletter. Adding the web site responses to the newsletter responses for the common questions does not alter the results above. The number of responses to the web questionnaire is not sufficient for an analysis of the other question that was related to how the user discovered the web site.
and hope that we continue to meet your needs.
File Downloads - Please note
|File downloads from the El.pub site are currently suspended - the links however have not been updated to reflect this. If you would like access to a particular download file - please email firstname.lastname@example.org with a suitable request confirming a description of the file you wish to download.|
El.pub - Interactive
Electronic Publishing R & D News and Resources
We welcome feedback and contributions to the information service, and proposals for subjects for the news service (mail to: email@example.com)
Edited by: Logical Events Limited - electronic marketing, search engine marketing, pay per click advertising, search engine optimisation, website optimisation consultants in London, UK. Visit our website at: www.logicalevents.org
Last up-dated: 8 February 2018
© 2018 Copyright and disclaimer El.pub and www.elpub.org are brand names owned by Logical Events Limited - no unauthorised use of them or the contents of this website is permitted without prior permission.