When a user views an archived page using the archive's user interface (UI), the user selects a datetime to view from a list. The archived web page, if available, is then displayed. From this display, the web archive UI attempts to simulate the web browsing experience by smoothly transitioning between archived pages. During this process, the target datetime changes with each link followed; drifting away from the datetime originally selected. When browsing sparsely-archived pages, this nearly-silent drift can be many years in just a few clicks. We conducted 200,000 acyclic walks of archived pages, following up to 50 links per walk, comparing the results of two target datetime policies. The Sliding Target policy allows the target datetime to change as it does in archive UIs such as the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. The Sticky Target policy, represented by the Memento API, keeps the target datetime the same throughout the walk. We found that the Sliding Target policy drift increases with the number of walk steps, number of domains visited, and choice (number of links available). However, the Sticky Target policy controls temporal drift, holding it to less than 30 days on average regardless of walk length or number of domains visited. The Sticky Target policy shows some increase as choice increases, but this may be caused by other factors. We conclude that based on walk length, the Sticky Target policy generally produces at least 30 days less drift than the Sliding Target policy.
Although the need for web archiving has been understood since nearly the dawn of the Web @cite_24 , these efforts have been for the most part independent in motivation, requirements, and scope. The Internet Archive, the first archive to attempt global scope, came into existence in 1995 @cite_14 . Since then, many other archives have come into existence. Some of these use software developed by the Internet Archive and have similar capture behavior and user interfaces; however, other archives such as WebCite @cite_8 have significantly different capture behaviors.
@cite_24 @cite_14 @cite_8
2748382489 300178524 2136963875 2097411811
With its seemingly limitless scope, the World Wide Web promises enormous advantages, along with enormous problems, to researchers who seek to use it as a source of data. Websites change continually and a high level of flux makes it challenging to capture a snapshot of the web, or even a cross-section of a small subset of the web. A web archive, such as those at the Internet Archive, promises to store and deliver repeated cross-sections of the entire web, and it also offers the potential for longitudinal analysis. Whether this potential is realized depends on the extent to which the archive has truly captured the web. Therefore, a crucial question for Internet researchers is: ‘How good are the archival data?’ We ask if there are systematic biases in the Internet Archive, using a case study to address this question. Specifically, we are interested in whether biases exist in the British websites stored in the Internet Archive data. We find that the Internet Archive contains a surprisingly small subset, about 24 , of the webpages of the website that we use for our case study (the travel site, TripAdvisor). Furthermore, the subset of data we found in the Internet Archive appears to be biased and is not a random sample of the webpages on the site. The archived data we examine has a bias toward prominent webpages. This bias could create serious problems for research using archived websites. The World Wide Web is becoming a source of information for researchers, who are more aware of the possibilities for collections of Internet content as resources. Some have begun creating archives of web content for social science and humanities research. However, there is a growing gulf between policies shared between global and national institutions creating web archives and the practices of researchers making use of the archives. Each set of stakeholders finds the others’ web archiving contributions less applicable to their own field. Institutions find the contributions of researchers to be too narrow to meet the needs of the institution’s audience, and researchers find the contributions of institutions to be too broad to meet the needs of their research methods. Resources are extended to advance both institutional and researcher tools, but the gulf between the two is persistent. Institutions generally produce web archives that are broad in scope but with limited access and enrichment tools. The design of common access interfaces, such as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, limit access points to archives to only URL and date. This narrow access limits the ways in which web archives can be valuable for exploring research questions in the humanities and social sciences. Individual scholars, in catering to their own disciplinary and methodological needs, produce web archives that are narrow in scope, and whose access and enrichment tools are personalized to work within the boundaries of the project for which the web archive was built. There is no way to explore a subset of an archive by topic, event, or idea. The current search paradigm in web archiving access tools is built primarily on retrieval, not discovery. We suggest that there is a need for extensible tools to enhance access to and enrichment of web archives to make them more readily reusable and so, more valuable for both institutions and researchers, and that annotation activities can serve as one potential guide for development of such tools to bridge the divide. The Internet Archive, an important initiative that maintains a record of the evolving Web, has the promise of being a key resource for historians and those who study the Web itself. The archive's goal is to index the whole Web without making any judgments about which pages are worth saving. The potential importance of the archive for longitudinal and historical Web research leads to the need to evaluate its coverage. This article focuses upon whether there is an international bias in its coverage. The results show that there are indeed large national differences in the archive's coverage of the Web. A subsequent statistical analysis found differing national average site ages and hyperlink structures to be plausible explanations for this uneven coverage. Although the bias is unintentional, researchers using the archive in the future need to be aware of this problem. Web archiving has been gaining interest and recognized importance for modern societies around the world. However, for web archivists it is frequently difficult to demonstrate this fact, for instance, to funders. This study provides an updated and global overview of web archiving. The obtained results showed that the number of web archiving initiatives significantly grew after 2003 and they are concentrated on developed countries. We statistically analyzed metrics, such as, the volume of archived data, archive file formats or number of people engaged. Web archives all together must process more data than any web search engine. Considering the complexity and large amounts of data involved in web archiving, the results showed that the assigned resources are scarce. A Wikipedia page was created to complement the presented work and be collaboratively kept up-to-date by the community.