Paper detail

The Availability and Persistence of Web References in D-Lib Magazine

We explore the availability and persistence of URLs cited in articles published in D-Lib Magazine. We extracted 4387 unique URLs referenced in 453 articles published from July 1995 to August 2004. The availability was checked three times a week for 25 weeks from September 2004 to February 2005. We found that approximately 28% of those URLs failed to resolve initially, and 30% failed to resolve at the last check. A majority of the unresolved URLs were due to 404 (page not found) and 500 (internal server error) errors. The content pointed to by the URLs was relatively stable; only 16% of the content registered more than a 1 KB change during the testing period. We explore possible factors which may cause a URL to fail by examining its age, path depth, top-level domain and file extension. Based on the data collected, we found the half-life of a URL referenced in a D-Lib Magazine article is approximately 10 years. We also found that URLs were more likely to be unavailable if they pointed to resources in the .net, .edu or country-specific top-level domain, used non-standard ports (i.e., not port 80), or pointed to resources with uncommon or deprecated extensions (e.g., .shtml, .ps, .txt).

preprint2005arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.