<em>Despite the integrated guide’s utility, however, it remains an under-utilized resource. Indeed, one of our challenges has been how to make sure people find the content and tools most useful for their research questions. Perhaps a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material....</em>
 
These are insightful comments, yet another indication of the extent to which the <em>Archive</em> editors do a praiseworthy job of self-assessment as the project moves forward.  I would be interested to have Ken expand on what steps have been taken to date “to make sure people find the content and tools” of the <em>Archive</em>.  There are traditional methods, such as submitting news notes or even paid advertisements to relevant academic newsletters and journals; tried-and-true digital steps, such as posting announcements to discussion lists whenever the <em>Archive</em> reaches another milestone; and there are the still somewhat novel Web 2.0 avenues, such as creating a Facebook page, creating a blog, and regular Tweets.  
 
How many of these paths, and how often, it makes sense for the <em>Archive</em> to move forward on, is difficult to assess, because time and resources expended in publicizing the project are time and resources not available for developing the site.  Assessment is difficult, too, because of the opacity of the cost/benefit equation—30,000 unique visitors is a lot, but is it anywhere near as many as “should” be visiting, and what do we base “should” on?  A comparison to similar sites?  Research (I’m not sure any exists) on the existing “cost per visit” for websites?  And do some visitors matter more than others?  If so, how do you identify them and weight them?
 
Such questions bring me back to my fourth essay. “My plea is that we do start asking, that we do start expecting to define quantitative and qualitative measure of the costs and benefits of such projects and, by extension, of our bricks and mortar archival endeavors as well.”  I believe the <em>Whitman Archive</em> is the most likely project to pursue some of these difficult answers, because it has already demonstrated its willingness to ask the accompanying questions.
 
One brief note about <em>a downside of bringing together so much material in one place is that doing so can inadvertently re-bury material</em>—it is an eerie echo of debates within my profession about whether the digital age eliminated the necessity of appraisal/selection.  There were many who argued that with digital material, infinite quantities could be searched infinitely quickly and with (eventually) infinite precision.  Therefore, we should just “keep it all.”  It has not turned out that way, of course, as almost any Google search might make evident; but the concern that even an ultra-focused Archive such as this one can effectively “bury” its growing contents should further weaken remaining claims keyword searches can find anything.


