This doc takes a step back to ask whether focusing on search efficiency and hit rate really makes the most sense. It looks at the bigger picture—like what users are actually trying to do and what makes search truly useful—and explores whether there might be better goals to aim for when improving the search experience.

1. Evaluating Search Efficiency & Hit Rate as KRs

Pros of Targeting Search Efficiency & Hit Rate

Search Efficiency (e.g., Time to First Relevant Result, Search Abandonment Rate)

Hit Rate (e.g., Query Success Rate, Precision@K)

Cons & Potential Gaps

🔴 Doesn't Directly Measure Scientific Outcomes

🔴 Might Overemphasize Low-Hanging UX Fixes

🔴 Fails to Account for Data Reuse & Discovery Impact

2. Alternative or Complementary KRs to Consider

To ensure that biomedical researchers find, understand, and reuse data effectively, better metrics that track meaningful success should be considered. These include:

A. Researcher Success & Engagement Metrics

📌 Search-to-Download Conversion Rate

📌 Search-to-Use Rate (via Citation or API Calls)

📌 Query Reformulation Rate

B. Dataset Understanding & Accessibility Metrics

📌 Dataset Exploration Rate

📌 Semantic Match Rate

3. Recommendation

Prioritizing KRs like Search-to-Use, Dataset Engagement, and Reusability over efficiency and hit rate may better align with the goal of driving biomedical discoveries. However, if the focus is on improving the search system in the short term, tracking efficiency can still be useful—provided it serves as a foundation for better discovery and impact.