Hi Wouter, does your repository comply with Google Scholar's inclusion guidelines? http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#overview
In case it does not comply to all guidelines, can you highlight to which extent you are deviating from the guidelines and what the reason is? This can be very valuable feedback for those repositories still configuring or customising to achieve compliance. Bram Luyten -- [image: logo] *Bram Luyten* *@mire* *2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 315, Carlsbad, CA. 92010* *Esperantolaan 4, Heverlee 3001, Belgium* <http://www.atmire.com/>www.atmire.com<http://atmire.com/website/?q=services&utm_source=emailfooter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=braml> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter <wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>wrote: > Hi Stevan,**** > > ** ** > > Google Scholar is a very good fulltext scholarly search engine, no doubt > about it. But it doesn’t find all the ftxt available on the web, albeit it > does a good job. **** > > Take e.g. one of my articles > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17014920805021872143&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5GS > found two PDF version’s but not the one on our universities repository. > That is still not fully indexed. Although it gets close > http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/380005 it found our metadata > reocrd, but not the ftxt.**** > > I guess this is still the case with many repositories. Earlier this year > it was even reported in the literature:**** > > ** ** > > Arlitsch, K. & P.S. O'Brien (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: > addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google. Library Hi Tech, > 30(1): 60-81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831211213210**** > > ** ** > > So Google Scholar is still not the cure all for all OA available in the > world. Interestingly our repository is better indexed in the standard > Google search engine rather than the Scholar version.**** > > ** ** > > So my point is, doing a search on GS, and finding a lot of hits still > doesn’t guarantee to find all the ftxt of those papers. **** > > ** ** > > Al the best Wouter **** > > ** ** > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* donderdag 3 januari 2013 2:09 > > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* SPARC Open Access Forum; scholc...@ala.org T.F.; LibLicense-L > Discussion Forum > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and > managers: awesome cross-search**** > > ** ** > > CHEER-LEADING, CHALLENGES AND REALITY**** > > ** ** > > What is missing and needed is not "awesome repositories cross-search > tools." **** > > ** ** > > What is missing and needed is OA repository deposits, and OA deposit > mandates. **** > > ** ** > > The repositories are mostly empty. **** > > ** ** > > And Google Scholar finds what OA content there is -- wherever it is on the > web -- incomparably better than "awesome repositories cross-search tools." > **** > > ** ** > > Here is just a sample vanity search on a relatively uncommon name (try > your own):**** > > ** ** > > *Awesome repositories cross-search tool:* Harnad 140 > hits<http://network.bepress.com/explore/?q=Harnad> > **** > > *Google Scholar:* Harnad 15,900 > hits<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Harnad&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5> > (author:Harnad: > 1,010<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=author%3AHarnad&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5> > hits)**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
