Trip Database Blog

Another glance at our webstats brings pleasing news. I’ve analysed how people get to TRIP, the top five being:

1. No referral – 72.02%
2. www.google.com/search 10.77%
3. google.co.uk/search 6.72%
4. search.yahoo.com/search 1.37%
5. ww.google.ca/search 1.01%

The top ‘referrer’ being ‘No referral’, this means people who have bookmarked the site or type in the TRIP URL directly. So last week, of the 110,000 searches, over 79,000 came from regular users of the site.

I suppose it’s difficult to know if that’s god or not. I suppose I’ve just been ignorant of the ‘loyalty’ of TRIP users. Over 72% seems pretty loyal. Of the remaining 28% how did they get to TRIP? Perhaps via searching for TRIP Database, perhaps searching other terms!

Given our server strain it might be wise to stop Google spidering our content, that will buy us some breathing space, one to ponder!

TRIP is always looking for good content to link to and this week three new publications have been added and are now searchable:

1. Clinical Evidence – Not new and have been on TRIP for a while! However, we have worked with CE to allow users of TRIP to get access to the first page of the relvent chapter, which is great news.
2. The Green Book – I’m not really sure why we haven’t added this before. We use the Green Book extensively in our question answering work. Better late than never!
3. Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network – I like this site….

With great content adding to great content and a significantly improved search algrithm just around the corner this is a great time for TRIP and it’s users!

The TRIP algorithm is the source of much pleasure and some embarrassment.
Why the latter emotion? Simply put, every now and then the system returns awful results? Not convinced, try this search menopause libido. The top result in a PRODIGY guideline on Parkinson’s.

I’ve posted before why this happens, but a refresher. In the case of the above guideline it is picked up by the search as it contains both terms. Even though it scores really low on ‘text relevancy’ it scores highly for being a recent document, being published in PRODIGY and being in the guidelines category.

For a fair few months now I’ve been trying to get a better system in place and yesterday I finally took ‘delivery’ of a test-bed for a new algorithm. This is a no thrills version on the site which allows me to see what the new algorithm can do. It does a number of things differently.

So how does that affect the above search – see the results below. Still needs a bit of tweaking, but it’s a vast improvement. The new system won’t be released until mid-September (with a number of other new features), we can’t wait.

Another ‘random’ title for a blog entry – I’ve been looking for an excuse!

Things have been fairly hectic of late. The NLH Q&A Service continues to move on with an expansion in questions we can answer (35-50 per week). The new arrangement also gives us greater flexibility, which suits us all very well.

My encounter with Facebook is proving interesting. Still not 100% sure why, although I’ve recently been contacted by a friend I lost track off after college (1991).

I’m very excited about a meeting next week – to finalise the next update to TRIP. There are 3 main planks, the first I’ve discussed before, a significant overhaul in the search algorithm. One of the others I’ve mentioned in the past – the content/quality slider. However, the big enhancement I’ll leave for another day.

Finally, I’ll be gone for most of this week, at the Manchester International Festival.

A recent review of TRIP in Comprehensive Ophthalmology Update (click here for PubMed entry) was very flattering. Some of the snippets:

“..it is clear that the number of sources included in the database is impressive in both quantity and quality”

“…this is really an exhaustive resource for virtually any clinical scenario you can imagine.”

“The TRIP Database is a remarkable combination of simplicity and expansive depth. It is hard to imagine that a physician looking for evidence-based information on any entity likely to be encountered in clinical practice would ever need another resource other than the TRIP page.”

Another recent article (Click here for PubMed entry) looked at TRIP’s performance compared to a number of other high profile resources. It used an interesting methodology (perhaps strange would be a more accurate description). Basically, it used two main resources to answer clinical questions and then, if the answer was not found in these, the other resources (including TRIP) got used by the clinicians.

In short, TRIP answered more questions than any other single resource. This is made all the more impressive in that TRIP was only used when ‘easier’ questions had already been answered by the two ‘main’ resources.

I’m not sure why but I’ve started using Facebook. I think my profile is available via this link http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=759565005. However, you need to login to Facebook to see some of the stuff and need to be ‘my friend’ to see all the stuff.

We are currently planning our next upgrade to TRIP and we need your help! Let us know via the comments facility below, via the TRIP Database contact form (click here) or e-mailing me. The planned upgrade will go ‘hand in hand’ with a significant improvement in the search algorithm.

BACKGROUND: TRIP has a reputation for offering access to high-quality clinical literature. We wish to retain that reputation.

PROBLEM: Many clinical questions cannot be answered using high-quality material. Therefore, currently, users would need to go to other websites to find their answer. We are exploring the possibility of adding a broader range of material to support enhanced questions answering. However, simply adding lesser-quality material into the main search would ‘dilute’ the quality.

PROPOSAL: To add extra, lower-quality, material into TRIP in such a way as to ensure we retain our high-quality reputation while still enhancing our ability to facilitate clinical question answering. To that end I can see three main possibilities:

1) Auxiliary search: I’d envisaged an initial search to cover the higher quality material. If the user feels they need additional information they move a ‘slider’ (click on image below) to include a wider variety of content. This would sit at the top of the search results.

Pros: Allows users to easily include/exclude content.

Cons: Sliders are not a widely used ‘technology’ and users might not fully understand them.

2) Exclude from core search. This would be to include all the material in the search but only include the core ‘quality’ material in the main search (where all the results are ‘mixed’ together and returned on the first results page after a search). To select the lower quality material a user would need to click on the particular category section.

Pros: Cheap.

Cons: Users might not use the category search therefore never seeing the results.

3) Contingency. We could get the system to carry out a search as outlined in point 2) above. However, if there are less than, say, ten results which are highly textually relevant, the system adds the additional content to help boost the number of relevant results.

Pros: Should work very well, with little user intervention.

Cons: The inclusion of lesser quality material will not be explicit which might impact on our ‘high quality’ reputation.

Alternatively, if you can think of any other solution we’d be delighted to hear from you!

Hurrah!

Things are pretty much back to normal with the search algorithm, so apologies for the poor service. For some reason PubMed has been having problems as well. A poor time for searchers.

This ‘scare’ with the algorithm has further emphasised the need to ensure the best search results possible. TRIP still has work to do on this and it is our priority. We’re hoping to get started on a major overhaul of this by the end of the month.