Academic libraries are turning increasingly to unified search solutions to simplify search and discovery of library resources. Unfortunately, very little research has been published on library user search behavior in single search box environments. This study examines how users search a large public university library using a prominent, single search box on the library website. The article examines two semesters of real-world data, totaling nearly 1.4 million transactions. Findings include that unified library search is about more than the catalog and articles, though these predominate. Additionally, a small number of the most popular search queries accounts for a disproportionate amount of the overall queries. Also discussed are the merits of ongoing evaluation of library user search behavior. t is nearly impossible to discuss search and discovery in libraries without mentioning Google. The search engine has shaped user expectations for ease of use and accentuated by contrast the challenges library users encounter when they use library websites to search for information. 1 The fragmented state of search and discovery on library websites results in part from what Lorcan Dempsey identified as the complexity of the library systems environment, which includes purchased materials (items managed by the integrated library system [ILS]), licensed materials (electronic journals and article databases), digital resources (institutional repositories, special collections resources), and the library's website. Rather than being organized by research needs and user expectations, library information resources have traditionally been organized by the disparate systems library organizations use to manage those resources. Although libraries aspire to provide effective and easy-to-use search interfaces, they have achieved mixed success. Much work has been devoted to improving library catalog search interfaces. Attention given to uncovering problems people encounter in the online catalog has led to the addition of features such as keyword searching, relevance ranked results, and faceted browsing. 3 These modernizations make catalogs easier to use, but fail to address the broader discovery problem: that the catalog typically exposes only resources managed by the ILS. However advanced in appearance and features, the next-generation catalog cannot help users discover resources or information crl-321 and limited search interfaces that obscure advances made to native database search interfaces. 6 More fundamentally, however, metasearch systems are yet another resource in the information environment users have to understand. As Cervone noted, "the term 'metasearch' means absolutely nothing to most people." 7 Warren worried that, despite the theoretical promise of a simplified research environment, "clumsy metasearching implementations will drive frustrated users more quickly to Google (and Google Scholar) and away from subscription library databases," precisely opposite the intended effect. 8 The objective of metasearch is laudable: to provide library users with an easier way to search for articles. The failure of metasearch to live up to its promise demonstrates the importance of making systems that are comprehensible and user friendly. More recently, libraries have turned to discovery platforms, such as WorldCat Local and Summon, with large, aggregated indexes to provide users with a better search experience. Discovery platforms differ from metasearch by using a centralized search index that makes them more responsive and more similar to common search environments on the web, such as e-commerce sites and web search engines. 9 The inclusion of library catalog holdings, journal articles, newspaper articles, e-books, and other material in discovery platforms is also a welcome step toward dismantling systems-level barriers between resources. Way's 2010 study of use data before and after implementing Summon at Grand Valley State University observed a "sharp decline in database use combined with a steep increase in full-text downloads and linkresolver click-throughs." 10 He concluded that "Summon had a dramatic impact on user behavior and the use of library collections." Even the most optimistic portraits of discovery platforms, however, hint at shortcomings. These include lack of all but the most basic interface customization, lack of complete coverage of all library resources, high cost, and some usability problems. 12 It is also uncertain where discovery platforms fit among the broader set of information resources that libraries provide. Inexperienced library users already struggle to disambiguate various types of resources. 13 Further research is needed to determine whether combining heterogeneous resource results into a single results list helps or hinders library users as they navigate the library resource environment. Libraries must think carefully about how to present discovery platforms along with everything else they provide, including those tools that overlap in functionality, such as the catalog and specialized article databases. Because discovery platforms combine a wide range of information resources into a single index, some libraries have started to feature them prominently as the default search tool on their websites. Indeed, enthusiasm about discovery platforms led Wisniewski to declare that they "finally [get] us to a true single search." 14 There is little research available, however, to indicate how discovery platforms perform when they are featured as the primary search engine on library websites. Evidence shows that a prominent, primary search box elicits significant user expectations and will attract use. Teague-Rector and Ghaphery found that increasing the size and prominence of the search box on the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries home page resulted in a nearly 100 percent increase in the number of searches from that page. Because prominent search boxes attract high use, it is especially important to consider problems users encounter when the capability of the search box does not meet their expectations. Teague-Rector and Ghaphery caution that a "larger, more visible search box may lead users to falsely assume that the library search functions like an online search engine." 16 Swanson and Green found in a library website usability study that: The search box became an obstacle in [...] questions where it should not have been used. In some cases, the search box was viewed as an all-encompassing search of the entire site. Several students searched for administrative information, research guides, and podcasts in this box. In a 2002 article reporting on a website usability study, Augustine and Greene noted that students seemed drawn to use the library's website search box whether or not it was appropriate for the task. 18 In addition to causing frustration, a search box that misses a wide swath of available information and resources will make that missing information practically invisible. 19 When considering whether to position discovery platforms as the primary search interface to libraries, it is vital to understand whether their performance is adequate for how users search. Libraries are typically required to choose whether the primary search box on their website will by default search the catalog, an article database, or the library website. 20 Multiple search boxes, tabbed search boxes, or a single box with selectable targets are methods that libraries have used to direct search traffic appropriately. Teague-Rector and Ghaphery's analysis of user behavior with different search target selector designs found that the default option (in this case, the catalog) received high use whether presented in tabs (60.5% of use) or drop-down selectors (72.4% of use). 21 Similarly, during the three months of summer 2011, the NCSU Libraries observed that the default search box, labeled "All" in figure 1, was used for 73.7 percent of searches from the home page. The other tabs were used less frequently, with the articles, catalog (labeled "Books & Media"), and website tabs receiving 11.7 percent, 13.5 percent, and 1.1 percent of use, respectively. While this distribution could change as we collect more data, it does indicate that the stakes are high to ensure that the default search option performs well. Although libraries may be inclined to design their home pages around a single search box to give an impression of simplicity, inadequate functionality and resource coverage may frustrate users and hide significant portions of library resources and services. There are few obvious patterns or strategies libraries can employ to provide users with effective and understandable search environments. In a 2008 survey of how search is implemented on library websites, Ghaphery, Teague-Rector, and Byrd observed "a wide range of approaches, indicating that consolidating library search presents ongoing challenges." 22 In a 2011 OCLC report, Prescott and Erway identified a number of technical solutions to providing single search applications in cultural institutions, including single systems, central repositories, federated search, and central indexes. The variety of strategies employed by libraries to present and architect search indicates both the strong desire among libraries to get search and discovery right, and the complexity and difficulty of doing so. Swanson and Green concluded that a library website should "provide an understanding of the content, services, and tools that the site provides. This is a different task than that of Google." 24 It is also challenging. Library search and discovery environments must not only provide useful results for a wide range of information needs; they must also help users differentiate between kinds of resources. To provide information that may be useful for thinking about and designing the academic library search environment, this study examines two semesters of search log data generated by the NCSU Libraries' unified search application, QuickSearch. Not only is this application the default search box on the libraries' home page, it also combines results from a wider than usual range of library resources. Using these data, we will show that: our understanding of library search must be broader than article and catalog searching; analyzing and optimizing for the most frequent queries can improve the search experience for large numbers of users; and ongoing evaluation and incremental enhancement can help ensure library search applications make the best use of new technologies as user expectations and needs evolve. Teague-Rector and Ghaphery captured use data of their production search interface at Virginia Commonwealth University to study how the position, screen real estate, and search target selector method (drop-down menus versus tabs) affected use of the search box. 25 They found a dramatic increase in use of the search box when it was positioned centrally on the home page and given increased screen real estate. Additionally, they found that users tended to select a search target other than the default (the catalog in their designs) more frequently with the tabbed design than with the drop-down menu design. With the tabbed design, they reported that the default catalog target was used most frequently (60.5% of the time), followed by the articles target (20.6%), journal titles (16.5%), and website search (2.3%). They also noted that a large number (19%) of searches in the default catalog search target were full-citation searches for either articles or books. Their study calls for a more detailed analysis of search terms to help identify how users expect library search applications to perform.
Lown et al. REF through the search log analysis of NC State University's (NCSU) Libraries have observed that the default search box labeled "All" was used for 73.7 percent of searches while the other specialized sources (e.g., catalog labeled "Books & Media") were used less frequently.
How Users Search the Library from a Single Search Box
C&RL
C&RL
Computer Science