d03.02.03 – monthly evaluation report m3 · 2017-10-03 · d03.02.03 – monthly evaluation...

DG DIGIT / ISA Programme

D03.02.03 – Monthly Evaluation Report M3

Action 4.2.4 European Federated Interoperability Repository

Specific Contract 63 within Framework Contract DI/07171 – Lot 2

D03.02.03 – Monthly Evaluation Report

05/01/2015 Page i

Document Metadata

Property Value

Release date 2014-12-08

Status For review

Version 0.03

Authors Joan Bremers – PwC EU Services

Thibaut Knop– PwC EU Services

Reviewed by Pieter Breyne – PwC EU Services

Approved by

Document History

Version Date Description Action

0.01 2014-12-01 Initial draft Creation

0.02 2014-12-08 Internal review Review

0.03 2014-12-08 Internal review Review


05/01/2015 Page ii

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

1.1 CONTEXT........................................................................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 SCOPE .............................................................................................. 1 1.4 STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 2 1.5 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................... 2

2 WEB PERFORMANCE METRICS .............................................................. 3

2.1 UNIQUE VISITORS (‘USERS’ IN GA) ........................................................... 3 2.2 TOTAL VISITS ..................................................................................... 4 2.3 TOTAL VISITS PER LOCATION ................................................................... 4 2.4 TOTAL PAGE VIEWS - CATALOGUE .............................................................. 7 2.5 TOTAL PAGE VIEWS – MOST VIEWED INTEROPERABILITY SOLUTIONS ...................... 8 2.6 PAGE VIEWS PER VISIT .......................................................................... 10 2.7 AVERAGE VISIT DURATION ...................................................................... 11 2.8 PAGE VIEWS PER VISIT AND AVERAGE VISIT DURATION PER CHANNEL SOURCE .......... 11 2.9 BOUNCE RATE .................................................................................... 12 2.10 NEW VS. RETURNING VISITOR ................................................................. 13 2.11 METADATA PAGE VIEWS ......................................................................... 13 2.12 TOP REFERRING SEARCH TERMS ............................................................... 14 2.13 TOP SEARCH TERMS (INTERNAL SEARCH) ..................................................... 15 2.14 EXITS TO A WEBSITE OF A FEDERATION PARTNER ........................................... 17 2.15 DOWNLOADS ..................................................................................... 17

3 GOALS ................................................................................................ 19

3.1 GOAL 1: EXTERNAL SITE/SEARCH ENGINE -> CATALOGUE -> ASSET PAGE .............. 19 3.2 GOAL 2 – EXTERNAL SITE/SEARCH ENGINE -> CATALOGUE -> ASSET PAGE ->

DOWNLOAD/OUTBOUND LINK ............................................................................ 20 3.3 GOAL 3 - EXTERNAL SITE/SEARCH ENGINE -> ASSET PAGE ................................ 20 3.4 GOAL 4 – EXTERNAL SITE/SEARCH ENGINE -> ASSET PAGE -> DOWNLOAD/OUTBOUND

LINK 21 3.5 GOAL 5 – CATALOGUE -> ASSET PAGE ....................................................... 21 3.6 GOAL 6 – CATALOGUE -> ASSET PAGE -> DOWNLOAD/OUTBOUND LINK ............... 22 3.7 GOAL 7 – ASSET PAGE -> DOWNLOAD/OUTBOUND LINK .................................. 23

4 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 24

4.1 IMPORTANCE OF EFIR FOR THE PLATFORM ................................................... 24 4.2 REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “VISITORS” AND “USERS” ..................................... 24 4.3 KEY QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 24

4.3.1 WHAT are the most popular paths to downloading an interoperability

solution (so-called asset release on Joinup)? ............................................. 24 4.3.2 WHICH assets, asset releases and repositories are the most popular

(most visited, with the highest number of downloads) and WHY? ................. 24 4.3.3 HOW long and HOW often do people browse the repository? .......... 25 4.3.4 WHAT is the geographic distribution of the users of EFIR?.............. 25 4.3.5 HOW do people experience the visit to the catalogue and the

catalogue itself? ..................................................................................... 25 4.3.6 HOW do people use the search functionalities of EFIR (focusing on

the advanced search)?............................................................................ 25 4.3.7 HOW do people experience the addition of content on EFIR

(interoperability solutions, projects and repositories)? ................................ 25

ANNEX 1 – IN-PAGE ANALYTICS ............................................................... 26


05/01/2015 Page iii

List of Tables

Table 1 - Glossary ......................................................................................... 2

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Unique visitors ................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 - Detailed comparison of EFIR and EFIR Engaged Users ......................... 3 Figure 3 - Total visits / Sessions ...................................................................... 4 Figure 4 - Europe and World map .................................................................... 4 Figure 5 - Top 5 non-EU countries per visit ....................................................... 5 Figure 6 - Detailed report of performance per EU country ................................... 6 Figure 7 - Catalogue usage comparison ............................................................ 7 Figure 8 - Catalogue usage ............................................................................. 7 Figure 9 - Top 25 interoperability solutions ....................................................... 9 Figure 10 - Top 10 federated repositories ........................................................ 10 Figure 11 - Top 10 projects ............................................................................ 10 Figure 12 - Pages per visit comparison ............................................................ 10 Figure 13 - Average visit duration comparison .................................................. 11 Figure 14 - In-depth channel source analysis ................................................... 12 Figure 15 - Bounce rate ................................................................................. 12 Figure 16 - Percentage of new visits................................................................ 13 Figure 17 - New vs. Returning visitor average .................................................. 13 Figure 18 - Metadata page view comparison .................................................... 14 Figure 19 - Top 10 keywords .......................................................................... 14 Figure 20 - SEO results from Google Webmaster Tools ...................................... 15 Figure 21 - Internal search usage overview ...................................................... 16 Figure 22 - Top 10 internal search terms ......................................................... 16 Figure 23 - Advanced searches ....................................................................... 17 Figure 24 - Total number of Events (Downloads & Outbound links) ..................... 17 Figure 25 - Top 10 Outbound Links ................................................................. 17 Figure 26 - Top 25 downloads ........................................................................ 18 Figure 27 - EFIR Goal 1 ................................................................................. 19 Figure 28 - EFIR Goal 2 ................................................................................. 20 Figure 29 - EFIR Goal 3 ................................................................................. 20 Figure 30 - EFIR Goal 4 ................................................................................. 21 Figure 31 - EFIR Goal 5 ................................................................................. 22 Figure 32 - EFIR Goal 6 ................................................................................. 22 Figure 33 - EFIR Goal 7 ................................................................................. 23 Figure 34 - In-page analytics for Catalogue of Interoperability Solutions.............. 26


Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context

The report is prepared in the context of Action 4.2.4 European Federated

Interoperability Repository. A key to federating further national and local repositories

or standardisation bodies into the EFIR will be their representation on the Joinup

platform. The solutions will need to be described in a high quality, informative manner

and be easily re-usable.

Therefore, a formal evaluation of the performance of the Joinup platform will be

performed on a monthly basis, focusing on the EFIR activities. During the overall

project, from September till January 2014, a report will be published each month,

describing the performance of EFIR on Joinup during the reporting month, based on

the gathered metrics defined in Task 03. This report covers the month of November

2014.

1.2 Objective

The objective of these evaluation reports is to provide the necessary data-based

evidence to the stakeholders of EFIR – both the interoperability solution providers

and re-users – upon which the value and future sustainability of the Repository can

be assessed.

To do so, the performance evaluation provided in the context of this project aims at

answering the following key questions:

1. WHAT are the most popular paths to downloading an interoperability solution

(so-called asset release on Joinup)?

2. WHICH interoperability solutions and repositories are the most popular (most

visited, with the highest number of downloads) and WHY?

3. HOW long and HOW often do people browse the repository?

4. WHAT is the geographic distribution of the users of EFIR?

5. HOW do people experience the visit to the catalogue and the catalogue itself?

6. HOW do people use the search functionalities of EFIR (focusing on the

advanced search)?

7. HOW do people experience the addition of content on EFIR (interoperability

solutions, projects and repositories)?

1.3 Scope

The scope of this Evaluation report is the evaluation of the EFIR on the Joinup

platform. The other functionalities of the Joinup platform are out of scope for this

evaluation. Assets that do not qualify as interoperability solutions are also out of

scope.


Page 2

1.4 Structure

The remainder of this deliverable is structured as follows:

In chapter 2 we present the web performance metrics;

In chapter 3 we present the results of the pre-defined goals; and

In chapter 4 we provide a conclusion on the results.

1.5 Glossary

Throughout this report, we will use the following terms defined by Google Analytics:

Table 1 - Glossary

Session A session (previously a visit) consists of a series of pageviews that a

single visitor makes during a period of activity. A session/visit ends

after the visitor closes the browser, clears cookies, or is inactive for

30 minutes.

User A user (previously a unique visitor) is someone making a unique visit.

Unique

visit

A unique visit is defined per browser and per computer. Technically,

a unique visit is defined by Google Analytics using the cookie _utma.

Following this definition:

Closing or changing the browser/computer increases the number of

unique visits

Clearing the cookies increases the number of unique visits

Search

exit

The number of searches made immediately before leaving the site.

This means the user ran a search, but did not click on any of the

search results, and left the website instead.

Federated

repository

A federated repository is an existing repository of interoperability

solutions and open-source software that exchanges information

about its interoperability solutions and open-source software projects

with the Joinup platform, creating a pan-European federation of

repositories of interoperability solutions. In consequence, the Joinup

platform provides “federated” access to these repositories from a

single point of access, giving more visibility to the external repository

and its solutions.

Project In the context of the Joinup platform, a project is interoperability

solution or open-source software that is hosted on Joinup (not

federated through a repository). Joinup offers a special kind of

community around open-source software or interoperability solution.

It provides a set of communication (blogs, wikis, forums, documents)

and collaboration tools for collaborative development (source code

repository, issue tracker, release management tool).

Google Analytics has recently modified the terminology related to visits. More

specifically, old-called ‘visits’ are now called sessions. Besides, old-called ‘unique

visitors’ are now called users. Those terms will be equally used throughout the

monthly evaluation report.


Page 3

2 WEB PERFORMANCE METRICS

In the context of this report, all metrics below have been gathered for the period

from November 1st, till November 30th.

In order to keep the metrics as accurate as possible, we excluded all data coming

from Zaventem, so as not to count the visits and page views of the PwC consultants

working on the Joinup platform.

2.1 Unique visitors (‘Users’ in GA)

Figure 1 presents the monthly comparison (day by day) of the number of unique

visitors on the segments EFIR and EFIR Engaged Users for the month of November.

Figure 1 - Unique visitors

As shown in Figure 1, engaged users represent only about 17.2% of the visitors on

EFIR, which is a decrease with regards to last month (0.8%).

On Sunday 9 November, Joinup reached a peak of 872 unique visitors, which

represents roughly an increase of 79% regarding normal weekdays. However, it

appears that the traffic generated on that day led the users to spam content mainly

about retransmission of US Football games.

The EFIR segment represents 34.51% of all traffic on Joinup, while the EFIR Engaged

User represents 5.95% of all traffic on Joinup. A detailed comparison of both

segments is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Detailed comparison of EFIR and EFIR Engaged Users


Page 4

2.2 Total Visits

Figure 3 presents the November report (day by day) of visits (so-called ‘Sessions’ in

GA) on the EFIR segment.

Figure 3 - Total visits / Sessions

Figure 3 shows that the total number of visits including EFIR pages is quite stable

over the month of November 2014: about 550 visits per day on weekdays and 150

per day on weekends, except for the 9th of November during which we reached a

peak of 996 sessions.

2.3 Total Visits per location

In this subsection, we present the monthly reporting on the location from which visits

to the EFIR segment came from. In Figure 4 you will find the maps of the locations

of visits on EFIR. The darkest blue represents a large number of visits; the lightest

blue represents a small number of visits. Figures 4, 5 and 6 represent statistics over

the month of November.

Figure 4 - Europe and World map

In order to get a view on the usage of EFIR outside of the border of the European

Union, we present in Figure 5 a detailed report of the top 5 non-EU countries in

term of visit to the EFIR segment.


Page 5

Figure 5 - Top 5 non-EU countries per visit

In order to get a view on the usage of the EFIR platform within the European Union,

you will find in Figure 6 detailed reporting on the performance of EFIR in the

different European countries.


Page 6

Figure 6 - Detailed report of performance per EU country


Page 7

2.4 Total page views - Catalogue

In Figure 7 we present a view on how many times each of the catalogue pages has

been consulted during the month of November 2014, for the EFIR segment (in blue)

compared with the EFIR Engaged User segment (in green).

Figure 7 - Catalogue usage comparison

We observed that despite the large difference in overall number of visitors between

EFIR and EFIR Engaged Users (presented in subsection 2.1), the difference in the

number of catalogue page views is significantly less important. This means that the

catalogue pages are heavily used by Engaged Users.

In Figure 8 you will find the daily comparison of aggregated catalogues page views.

Figure 8 - Catalogue usage

Detailed in-Page analytics of the Catalogue of Interoperability Solutions (Figure 34)

are presented in Annex 1.


Page 8

2.5 Total page views – most viewed interoperability solutions

Below we present the most popular interoperability solutions (Figure 9), federated

repositories (Figure 10), and projects (Figure 11), for the EFIR segment.


Page 9

Figure 9 - Top 25 interoperability solutions


Page 10

Figure 10 - Top 10 federated repositories

Figure 11 - Top 10 projects

2.6 Page views per visit

In Figure 12 we present the monthly comparison (day by day) of the depth of visits

(number of pages viewed per visit) for each segment.

Figure 12 - Pages per visit comparison

Over the month of November, the number of page viewed per visit stay more or less

constant, for both the EFIR and the engaged users segment, with respectively 4,32

et 15,73 pages viewed per visit, which represents a slight increase with regards to


Page 11

the previous months. The bounce rate for the EFIR segment is 46.48%, meaning that

roughly the half of the users from the EFIR segment leave the website after the first

page.

2.7 Average visit duration

In Figure 13 we present a monthly comparison (daily numbers) of the length of the

visits for the EFIR and the EFIR Engaged Users segments.

Figure 13 - Average visit duration comparison

Over the month of November, the average visit duration has remained more or less

constant, with 4:40 minutes for overall EFIR users and 19:59 minutes for Engaged

Users. It represents an increase of 53’ and 1:45 respectively with regards to the

month of October.

2.8 Page views per visit and average visit duration per channel source

In Figure 14 we present the number of visits, the number of pages viewed per visit

and the average duration of a visit, grouped by channel source (the source of the

visit) for the 5 main sources of traffic for EFIR.


Page 12

Figure 14 - In-depth channel source analysis

The channel source (direct) means that the visitor directly entered Joinup’s URL in

the browser.

Just as it was the case until July, a large amount of traffic is coming from agid.gov.it,

which also partly explains the high traffic received from Italy.

2.9 Bounce rate

Figure 15 presents an analysis of the bouncing rate on the EFIR segment for the

month of November. By bouncing we understand visitors coming on an EFIR page

and leaving the website without doing anything else.

Figure 15 - Bounce rate


Page 13

The bounce rate has remained constant around 46.48%, which is within the range of

the industry average for a content website (40-60%).

2.10 New vs. Returning visitor

In Figure 16 we present the evolution of the percentage of new visits for the month

of November.

Figure 16 - Percentage of new visits

As shown in the above figures, the percentage of new visits remains fairly constant

over the period and is only slightly higher during weekends.

Figure 17 presents the monthly average of new versus returning visitors.

Figure 17 - New vs. Returning visitor average

2.11 Metadata page views

Figure 18 presents a comparison of the number of page view for the metadata pages

of EFIR (metadata export functionality).


Page 14

Figure 18 - Metadata page view comparison

Over the period of November 2014, almost no visitor has taken advantage of this

service.

2.12 Top referring search terms

In Figure 19 we present the top 10 most popular keywords driving traffic to EFIR for


Figure 19 - Top 10 keywords

(Not provided) means that Google Analytics was not able to gather the queried

keywords from the search engine. In most cases this is due to the cookie policy of

the visitor or its browser.

In order to provide a more detailed view of the search keywords, we set up the

Google Webmaster Tools for Joinup and started gathering Google Search data, which

is presented in Figure 20.


Page 15

Figure 20 - SEO results from Google Webmaster Tools

‘Impressions’ are the number of times Joinup appeared in the results of the query in

Google Search (for example Joinup appeared 2,500 times in the results on a Google

search due to people searching semic on Google). One important remark is that one

search can often result in several impressions (if I search “joinup” the first 3 results

lead to Joinup and thus will be counted as 3 impressions).

‘Average position’ represents the position in which Joinup appeared in the results of

the query. One important note is that we are tracking https://joinup.europa.eu, and

as a result Google will not count the average position if the result is

http://joinup.europa.eu (most of the time the ‘https’ is first, or second just behind

the ‘http’).

‘CTR’ is the ‘Click Through Rate’, meaning the percentage of people who clicked on

an impression and accessed Joinup.

It is important to note that we cannot distinguish EFIR and non-EFIR visits in the SEO

results, and that these results only take in consideration Google searches. It is

nonetheless a good way of representing the most popular keywords leading to Joinup

from a public search engine.

2.13 Top search terms (internal search)

In Figure 21 we present an overview of the internal search engine usage over the

month of November. It shows that on average 13.14% of EFIR visitors are using the

internal search tool.

https://joinup.europa.eu/

http://joinup.europa.eu/


Page 16

Figure 21 - Internal search usage overview

In Figure 22 we present detailed statistics on the top 10 internal search terms.

Figure 22 - Top 10 internal search terms

Due to the limitations of Google Analytics on internal searches on Joinup, the

following should be noted:

- “bs_current_version:true” is the default search of the catalogue page, to

display the top results (most recent);

- “sm_facterbuilder_facet_node_type:“facet_node_type:facet_24” is the

search filter activated when a user limits the search to Interoperability

Solutions;

- Tid:16106 is the search filter activated when a user limits the search to Tools;

- Tid:16104 is the search filter activated when a user limits the search to

Framework;

- Ss_asset_language:en is the search activated when a user limits the search

to language English.

Figure 23 presents the advanced searches for the reporting period. Very few visitors

(0.19%) used the advanced search capabilities.


Page 17

Figure 23 - Advanced searches

2.14 Exits to a website of a federation partner

Figure 24 presents the total number of events during the month of November. We

defined downloads and clicks on outbound links (hyperlinks to partner websites) as

events in Google Analytics.

Note that due to issue ISAICP-1720, most of outbound links to federation partners

websites are not tracked. However, this issue is intended to be fix by Mid-December.

Figure 24 - Total number of Events (Downloads & Outbound links)

In Figure 25 we present the 10 most popular destinations for outbound links on

Joinup.

Figure 25 - Top 10 Outbound Links

In November, EFIR referred 2,646 visits to the websites of partners and publishers,

thus providing added value and incentive for these publishers to share their solutions

on Joinup. Note that the peak of events on the 9th of November is explained by an

increasing in the number of clicks on spam outbound links that were inserted by spam

users. The content type where those links appeared have been deleted.

2.15 Downloads

Figure 26 presents the 25 most popular downloads (interoperability solutions) of


https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/CITnet/jira/browse/ISAICP-1720?jql=text%20~%20%22outbound%20links%22


Page 18

Figure 26 - Top 25 downloads


Page 19

3 GOALS

In the Evaluation Plan we identified 7 behaviour goals in order to get an answer on

some of the evaluation questions.

It is important to note the following about the goals denomination:

- By catalogue, we understand any of the 3 catalogue pages:

o https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/interoperability/search?solr_search=1&fil

ters=%21bs_current_version%3Afalse

o https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/repository

o https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/project/all

- By asset page, we understand any of the following page categories:

o /asset/…

o /asset_release/…

o /software/…

o /project/…

3.1 Goal 1: external site/search engine -> catalogue -> asset page

In Figure 27 we present the metrics about users who complete the pre-defined goal:

the user arrives on Joinup on a catalogue page via an external site or search engine,

and goes from that catalogue page to consulting an asset page (after searching or

browsing through the assets on the catalogue).

Figure 27 - EFIR Goal 1

The number of visitors demonstrating the behaviour of goal 1 is quite limited.

However, considering the average number of pages viewed per visit (13.51) and the

average duration of each visit (00:14:42), we can conclude that these visitors have

really engaged with EFIR. With regards to the past months, the average session

duration for the users completing the Goal 1 is 3 minutes longer, and 2 pages are

additionally visited in average.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/interoperability/search?filters=bs_current_version:true

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/interoperability/search?filters=bs_current_version:true

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/repository

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/project/all


Page 20

3.2 Goal 2 – external site/search engine -> catalogue -> asset page ->

Download/Outbound link


the user arrives on Joinup via an external site or search engine and lands directly on

a catalogue page, then browses to an asset page and downloads an interoperability

solution or clicks on a link towards a publisher’s website.


As this goal is very restrictive, (the user has to land on a catalogue page), the number

of visitors is very limited. This is due to the fact that most interoperability solution

pages are easy to reach directly from an external search engine (as we will see in

Goal 3).

We note that very few visitors (18) have accomplished that goal in the past month,

which represents 50% more than in October.

3.3 Goal 3 - external site/search engine -> asset page


the user arrives on Joinup via an external site or search engine and lands directly on

an asset page.



Page 21

When we compare goal 1 and 3 regarding the number of visits (140 vs. 10,779) and

unique visitors (117 vs. 8,733) for the month of November, we can conclude that

most visitors are not arriving on Joinup through the catalogue page, but rather arrive

directly on an asset page. Based on this we can conclude that:

- This means that the asset pages are well described and thus easily findable

through a standard search engine (like Google or Bing);

- The fact that EFIR’s interoperability solutions are easily findable on standard

search engine means that they are visible on these standard search engines.

This means added promotion for our publishers, thanks to their good

description on Joinup and the platform’s high ranking in standard search

engines.

3.4 Goal 4 – external site/search engine -> asset page -> Download/Outbound link


the user arrives on Joinup via an external site or search engine, lands directly on an

asset page, and downloads an asset or software or clicks through to a link towards a

publisher’s website.


As we can see, there is a large peak on the 9th of November. As seen previously, the

peak is explained by the important number of clicks on spam outbound links.

3.5 Goal 5 – catalogue -> asset page


the user arrives on a catalogue page (from anywhere, search engine, other sections

of Joinup,) and then goes directly to an asset page (after searching or browsing

through the assets on the catalogue).


Page 22


When we compare goal 1 and 5, we can conclude that most visitors using the

catalogue are doing so because they were already on Joinup (i.e. they did not land

on the catalogue, most likely they landed on a news item, the homepage, or a

community and then browsed internally to a catalogue page).

3.6 Goal 6 – catalogue -> asset page -> Download/Outbound link


the user arrives on a catalogue page (from anywhere, search engine, other sections

of Joinup …), then goes directly to an asset page (after searching or browsing through

the assets on the catalogue), and downloads an asset or software or clicks through

to a link of a publisher’s website.


By comparing goal 2 and 6, we note that most visitors access the catalogue pages

from other locations on Joinup and not directly from an external source. This indicates

a low presence of the catalogue pages in public search engine.

By basing ourselves on the fact that the numbers of goal 7 and goal 3 are much

higher than goal 6, we can definitely conclude that asset pages are appearing more

often that catalogue pages while searching on public search engines.


Page 23

3.7 Goal 7 – Asset page -> Download/Outbound link


the user arrives on an asset page (from anywhere, search engine, catalogue, other

sections of Joinup …), and downloads an asset or software or clicks through to a link

towards a publisher’s website.


By comparing goal 6 and goal 7, we note that most visitors do not use the catalogue

in order to access the asset or software they wish to download.


Page 24

4 CONCLUSION

4.1 Importance of EFIR for Joinup

Based on the gathered metrics, we can conclude the following about the importance

of EFIR for Joinup:

Overall EFIR represents 34,5% of all traffic on Joinup, meaning that the

published interoperability solutions are highly visible on Joinup;

The EFIR pages also have a significantly lower bounce rate than the average

Joinup pages (46.48% vs. 55.46%, taking in consideration that EFIR pages

are included in the general Joinup metric); and

EFIR’s visits in November were coming for about 68.09% from new visitors,

meaning that EFIR is successful in attracting new visitors, but is not really

successful in retaining and engaging users.

4.2 Real difference between “visitors” and “users”

We can distinguish a difference between EFIR’s “visitors” and EFIR’s “users”, as was

shown by the tremendous gap between the segment EFIR Engaged Users and the

generic EFIR segment:

- While representing only 17% of the EFIR visitors, engaged users represent

about 62% of all EFIR page views;

- Average visit time of Engaged Users is 19:59 minutes, compared to 4:14

minutes for the generic segment, and only 48 seconds after removing the

Engaged Users from the generic segment;

- Engaged users will browse on average 15.73 pages, while visitors in the

generic segment (after exclusion of the engaged users) will only browse an

average of 1.92 pages.

2255 visitors were engaged users in Novembers, and 47.94% of those were new

visitors, meaning that EFIR is successful in engaging new users.

4.3 Key questions

4.3.1 WHAT are the most popular paths to downloading an interoperability solution

(so-called asset release on Joinup)?

Most visitors arrive directly on an interoperability solution from a search engine,

thanks to their good ranking in the standard search engines. The catalogue pages

are the least preferred options to arrive on an interoperability solution.

4.3.2 WHICH interoperability solutions and repositories are the most popular (most

visited, with the highest number of downloads) and WHY?

The most popular assets, asset releases and repositories are presented in sub section

2.5.


Page 25

Over the month of November, the most popular for consultation were:

- Interoperability Solutions: SD-DSS

- Federated repository: UN/CEFACT

- Project: circabc

Over the month of November, the most popular for downloads were:

- EUPL

In November, EFIR referred most traffic to:

- https://static.arhs-developments.com/dgmarkt-dss-rEEwAj4c/DSS-4.2.0/

4.3.3 HOW long and HOW often do people browse the repository?

On average the visit lasts 4:14 minutes and 4.32 pages are viewed per visit. However

as explained sub section 4.2, there is a large gap between visitors and users.

4.3.4 WHAT is the geographic distribution of the users of EFIR?

Out of the 13,086 visits to the repository in November, 8,815 were coming from a

Member State (67.3%). A detailed representation of the geographic distribution can

be found in Figure 6 - Detailed report of performance per EU country for the detail

for each Member State and in Figure 5 - Top 5 non-EU countries per visit for the 5

non-member state countries generating the most visits to the repository.

4.3.5 HOW do people experience the visit to the catalogue and the catalogue itself?

The catalogue is mostly used by recurring users (47%), and only a very limited

number of visitors actually land on the catalogue while visiting the repository. Visitors

going through the catalogue are also staying longer on the repository (19.59 minutes

on average) and browsing more pages (15.73).

4.3.6 HOW do people use the search functionalities of EFIR (focusing on the advanced

search)?

Most searches realized on Joinup are made by EFIR visitors. However this still only

represents about 13.14 % of all visits. This can be partly explained by the fact that

most visitors arrive directly on the asset or software page that they wish to visit, and

thus did not need to use the internal search functionality.

A very limited number of visitors used the advanced search capabilities.

4.3.7 HOW do people experience the addition of content on EFIR (interoperability

solutions, projects and repositories)?

To provide an answer to this question statistics about /node/add/* pages must be

collected. However those pages are currently not tracked by Google Analytics. In

consequence, no data can be gathered.


Page 26

ANNEX 1 – IN-PAGE ANALYTICS

Figure 34 - In-page analytics for Catalogue of Interoperability Solutions

d03.02.03 – monthly evaluation report m3 · 2017-10-03 · d03.02.03 – monthly evaluation...

Documents