More project case studies available

We’re very pleased that all of the project case studies are now available to read online. We posted before about the first five case studies when we added them to our institutional repository. Now the other five have joined them.

Searching for Home in the Historic Web: An Ethnosemiotic Study of London-French Habitus as Displayed in Blogs by Saskia Huc-Hepher. Saskia examines blogs by French people living in London, how their attitudes to the city change over time, and how those changes are reflected in the text and imagery of their blogs.

Capture, commemoration and the citizen historian: digital shoebox archives relating to PoWs in the Second World War by Alison Kay. Alison is interested in the way that personal archives collected by citizen historians may be studied via web archives.

A History of UK Companies on the Web by Marta Musso. Marta describes how she looked for evidence of the way that UK companies took their first, tentative steps in establishing websites.

The Online Development of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Armed Forces by Harry Raffal. Harry studies changes in the MoD websites over time, both in terms of their emphasis and the degree to which they are centrally controlled and branded.

Looking for public archaeology in the web archives by Lorna Richardson. Lorna examines the way that the public thinks of archaeology, using web archives as her evidence base.

We’d like to thank our 10 bursary holders for their enthusiasm and commitment to the project. Their feedback invaluably informed the development of our web interface, and their case studies are wonderful examples of the subject range and methodological variety of research that can be carried out using web archives.

IHR workshop on web archiving

On 11 November the IHR held a workshop, ‘An Introduction to Web Archiving for Historians‘, for which we welcomed back two old friends from the BUDDAH project as speakers.

The day opened with Jane Winters talking about why historians should be using web archives. You can see the slides of Jane’s talk here, including a couple courtesy of a fascinating presentation from Andy Jackson about the persistence of live web pages. This was followed by Helen Hockx-Yu, formerly of the British Library’s web archiving team but now at the Internet Archive. Helen described the Internet Archive’s mind-boggling scale and its ambitious plans for the future; Helen’s slides are here. Jane then returned to talk about the UK Government Web Archive and Parliament Web Archive (more slides here).

After having heard about various web archives, attendees were able to try the Shine interface for themselves. This is an interface to a huge archive – the UK’s web archive covering 1996 to 2013 – all now searchable as full text. Shine was one of the major outputs of the BUDDAH project and we were delighted to see how fast and responsive it now is, thanks to the continuing work of the web archiving team at the British Library.

Before lunch there was time for Marty Steer to lead a quick canter through the command line tool wget. Marty explained how flexible this tool is for downloading web pages or whole sites (and the importance of using the settings provided to avoid hammering sites with a blizzard of requests). You can even use wget to create complete WARC files. Marty’s presentation, with all of the commands used, can be read here.

After lunch Rowan Aust of Royal Holloway described her research on the BBC’s reaction to the Jimmy Savile scandal and how it has removed Savile from instances of its web and programme archives. Rowan’s earlier account of the research, written for the BUDDAH project, is on our institutional repository.

Then it was back to the command line, as Jonathan Blaney explained how easy it is to interrogate very large text files by typing a few lines of text. On Mac and Linux machines a fully-featured ‘shell’, bash, is provided by default; for this session using Windows Jonathan had installed ‘Git bash’, a free, lightweight version of bash (there are useful installation instructions here). The group looked at links to external websites in the Shine dataset, using a sample of a random 0.01% of the full link file; this still amounted to about 1.5 million lines (the full file, at 19GB, can be downloaded from the UKWA site). The main command used for this hands-on session was grep, a powerful yet simple search utility which is ideal for searching very large files or numbers of files.

The day ended with the group using, a free online tool which allows the archiving of web pages through a simple and intuitive interface.

We’d like to thank everyone who came to the workshop: this was the first time we had run such an event on web archiving and their enthusiastic participation and constructive feedback have given us the confidence to run this course again in the future.

Project case studies now available

We are delighted that we can now make available five of the case studies written by researchers across the humanities and social sciences. More will be available via this blog soon.

At the beginning of the project we had a number of aspirations for what the case studies could achieve. Firstly, of course, we wanted to show the variety of research that could be undertaken across different disciplines with web archives. Secondly, we wanted the researchers to give us feedback on the interface to the archive that the project was developing (this they did at monthly meetings) and we are very grateful to them for attending and giving their views; this process improved the interface markedly. Thirdly we hoped that some of the researchers might become advocates for web archiving among their peers.

The last is already being realised. At a conference on web archiving in Aarhus in June, no fewer than four of our researchers gave papers. Given their enthusiasm, we are sure that they will also present their work at events in their own subject areas.

The first five case studies we are marking available are:

Web archives as big data

Peter Webster, a member of the project team, here reflects on the conference we held at the IHR on 3 December. Peter writes:

In early December the project held an excellent day conference on the theme of web archives as big data. A good part of the day was taken up with short presentations from eight of our bursary holders, reflecting both on the substantive research findings they have achieved, and also on the experience of using the SHINE interface and on web archives as source material in general.

In early 2015 these results will appear on this blog as a series of reports, one from each bursary holder. So, rather than attempt to summarise each presentation in turn, this post reflects on some common methodological themes that emerged during the course of the day.

Perhaps the single most prominent note of the whole day was of the sheer size of the archive. “Too much data!” was a common cry heard during the project, and with good reason, since there are few other archives in common use with data of this magnitude, at least amongst those used by humanists. In an archive with more than 2 billion resources recorded in the index, the researchers found that queries needed to be a great deal more specific than most users are accustomed to; and that even the slightest ambiguity in the choice of search terms in particular led very quickly to results sets containing many thousands of results. Gareth Millward also drew attention to the difficulties in interpreting patterns in the incidence of any but the most specific search terms across time across the whole dataset, since almost any search term a user can imagine may have more than one meaning in an archive of the whole UK web.

One common strategy to come to terms with the size of the archive was to “think small”: to explore some very big data by means of a series of small case studies, which could then be articulated together. Harry Raffal, for example, focused on a succession of captures of a small set of key pages in the Ministry of Defence’s web estate; Helen Taylor on a close reading of the evolution of the content and structure of certain key poetry sites as they changed over time. This approach had much in common with that of Saskia Huc-Hepher on the habitus of the London French community as reflected in a number of key blogs. Rowan Aust also read important things from the presence and absence of content in the BBC’s web estate in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal.

An encouraging aspect of the presentations was the methodological holism on display, with this particular dataset being used in conjunction with other web archives, notably the Internet Archive. In the case of Marta Musso’s work on the evolution of the corporate web space, this data was but one part of a broader enquiry employing questionnaire and other evidence in order to create a rounded picture.

One particular and key difference between the SHINE interface and other familiar services is that search results in SHINE are not prioritised by any algorithmic intervention, but are presented in the archival order. This brought into focus one of the recurrent questions in the project: in the context of superabundant data, how attached is the typical user to a search service that (as it were) second-guesses what it was that the user *really* wanted to ask, and presents results in that order? If such a service is what is required, then how transparent must the operation of the algorithm be in order to be trusted ? Richard Deswarte powerfully drew attention to how fundamental has been the effect of Google on user expectations of the interfaces they use. Somewhat surprisingly (at least for me), more than one of the speakers was prepared to accept results without such machine prioritisation: indeed, in some senses it was preferable to be able to utilise what Saskia Huc-Hepher described as the “objective power of arbitrariness”. If a query produced more results than could be inspected individually, then both Saskia and Rona Cran were more comfortable with making their own decisions about taking smaller samples from those results than relying on a closed algorithm to make that selection. In a manner strikingly akin to the functionality of the physical library, such arbitrariness also led on occasion to a creative serendipitous juxtaposition of resources: a kind of collage in the web archive.

Big Data in the Humanities: lessons from papyrus and Instagram

This is a cross-posting of an item that our colleague Josh Cowls has just written for his own blog. Thanks to Josh for permission to repost here.


I’m currently in Washington DC to attend the IEEE International Conference on Big Data. The first day is set aside for workshops, and I’ve just attended a really insightful one on ‘Big Humanities Data’. The diversity of work presented was immense, covering a huge sweep of history: from fragments of ancient Greek text to Instagram photos taken during the Ukraine revolution, via the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Spanish flu outbreak of a century ago. Nonetheless, certain patterns stuck out from many of most of the talks given.

The workshop started with a fascinating keynote from Michael Levy and Michael Haley Goldman from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum here in DC, which laid out the transformative effect of collecting and digitizing large volumes of documentation relating to the Holocaust. As they put it, the role of the institution has changed because of what can be done with this data, initiating a more interactive, collaborative relationship with the public. The historical specificity of the Holocaust as an event has yielded a ‘narrow but deep’ and diverse set of resources – from aerial bombing photography to thousands of hours of oral history – enabling new and unusual research questions, and changing the nature of historical enquiry in this area. I was able to plug the UK domain data project when I argued for the power of search for engaging both professional researchers and the public at large.

This ability to ask new questions in new ways was a prevalent theme across all the talks. Whether the data itself is weeks or centuries old, the innovative methods being used allow novel perspectives and findings. Research into the difference between text in different versions of the Bible, and a study of media text during and after the Fukushima disaster, both showed the new scale at which phenomena new and old could be analysed.

Yet challenges undoubtedly remain for the integration of these new tools into existing humanities research. The issue of data quality was frequently mentioned, no matter whether the data is born- or naturalised-digital; Owen Conlan described how scholars researching digitised records of the Irish Rebellion want both certainty of recall at a top level and scrutability of individual data points, while Alise Tifentale pointed out that photos taken during the Ukrainian Revolution were not a representative record of the protests.

In response, many presenters advocated a dialectical approach between historians versed in traditional questions of validity and the computer scientists (and digital humanists) who build algorithms, software and other tools for analysis. To speak in cliched big data parlance for a moment, the volume of humanities data which can now be analysed and the velocity at which this can be done is clearly new, but it became clear that by the nature of their training and experience, humanities researchers are ahead of the game when it comes to the challenges of verifying highly varied data.

The workshop was rounded off with a panel discussion with representatives of major funding bodies, which took a broader view on wider issues going forward, such as developing infrastructure, the maintenance of funding and the necessity of demonstrating the impact of this research to governments and the public. Overall, it was great to get a taste of the wealth of research being done using new data, tools and skills at this workshop, and to reflect on how many of the challenges and solutions suggested relate to research I’m part of back home.

Search results for historical material

This is a guest post by Jaspreet Singh, a researcher at the L3S Research Center in Hanover. Jaspreet writes:

When people use a commercial search engine to search for information, they represent their intent using a set of keywords. In most cases this is to quickly look up a piece of information and move on to the next task. For scholars however, the information intent is usually very different from the casual user and often hard to express as keywords. The fact that the advanced query feature of the BL’s web archive search engine is quite popular is strong evidence to suggest this.

By working closely with scholars though we can gain better insights into their search intents and design the search engine accordingly. In my master thesis I focus specifically on search result ranking when the user search intent is historical.

Let us consider the user intent, ‘I want to know the history of Rudolph Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York City’. We can safely assume that history refers to the important time periods and aspects of Rudolph Giuliani’s life. The user would most likely input the keywords ‘rudolph giuliani’ and expect to see a list of documents that give him a general overview of Giuliani’s major historically relevant facts. From here the user can modify his query of filter the results using facets to dig deeper into certain aspects. A standard search engine however is unaware of this intent. It only receives keywords as input and tries to serve the most relevant documents of the user.

At the L3S Research Center we have developed a prototype search engine specifically for historical search intents. We use temporal and aspect based search result diversification techniques to serve users with documents which cover a topic’s most important historical facts within the top n results. For example, when searching for ‘rudolph giuliani’ we try to retrieve documents that cover his election campaigns, his mayoralty, his run for senate and his personal life so that the user gets a quick gist of the important facts. Using our system, the user can explore the results by time using an interactive timeline or modify the query. The prototype showcases the various state of the art algorithms used for search diversification as well as our own algorithm, ASPTD. We use the New York Times 1987-2007 news archive as our corpus of study. In the interface we present only the top 30 results at a time.

In the future, we plan to test our approach on a much larger news archive like the 100 year London Times corpus. We also intend to strengthen the algorithm to work with web archives and work with the BL to integrate such methods in the current BL web archive search system so that users can explore the archive better.

Link to the system:

Project progress, an update

Josh Cowls reflects on recent developments and our goals towards the end of the project:


We are already well past the half-way mark of the project, and exciting new developments mean that our eleven researchers are well on their way to producing high-quality humanities research using the massive UK Web Domain Dataset.

The project team meets with the researchers on a regular basis, and these meetings always involve really constructive dialogue between the researchers accessing and using the data, and the development team at the British Library who are improving the interface of the archive all the time.

Our most recent meeting in September was no exception. We first got a brief update from all the researchers present about how their work was taking shape. This led seamlessly into a wider discussion of what researchers want from the interface. The top priority was for the creation of accounts for each individual user, enabling users to save the often-complex search queries that they generate. Another high priority was the ability to search within results sets, enabling more iterative searching.

Among the other enhancements suggested by the researchers were a number of proposed tweaks to the interface. One suggestion to save researchers time was for a snippet view on the results page, showing the search term in context – meaning researchers could skip over pages clearly irrelevant to their interest. On the other hand, it was not felt that URLs should necessarily appear on results pages.

Other requested tweaks to the interface included:

  • An option to choose the number of search results per page and to show more results per page by default
  • The ability to filter results from advanced as well as simple search queries
  • Tailoring of the ‘show more’ feature depending on the facet
  • A ‘show me a sample’ feature for large amounts of results, with a range of sampling methods, including a random sample option.

As well as these interface issues, the conversation also focussed on more academic questions, especially in regard to how results should be cited from the dataset. A ‘cite me’ button was suggested, which would allow a quick way of citing results, and similarly, when viewing individual results on the Internet Archive, an outer frame could include citation details. But of course, exactly what form these citation details should take raised other questions: should the British Library be cited as the provider of the data, or should the Internet Archive as the original collector? How should collections of results be cited, given that the British Library’s search functionality generated the results?

Inevitably, some of these questions couldn’t be answered definitely at the meeting, but the experience shows the value of involving researchers – who are able to raise vital questions from an academic perspective – while the development of the interface is still in progress. Since the meeting, many of the proposed changes have already been implemented – including, crucially, the introduction of log-ins for researchers, enabling the preservation and retrieval of search queries. The researchers are encouraged to bring more requests to our next meeting, at the British Library next week. From then, the pace of the project will accelerate still further, with a demo of the project to the general public at the AHRC’s Being Human Festival in November, and the ‘Web archives as big data’ conference in early December, when the researchers will present their findings.

Web archives at the British Library

This is a post by one of the project team from the British Library. Peter Webster is Web Archiving Engagement and Liaison Manager. Peter writes:

At the British Library, the web archiving team are delighted to be involved in this important new project, which builds on two earlier collaborative projects, both funded by the JISC:  the AADDA project (with the IHR)  and (at the Oxford Internet Institute) Big Data: Demonstrating the Value of  the UKW Web Domain Dataset for Social Science Research.

The web archive holdings of the British Library for the UK consist of three main parts, each compiled under different conditions at different times, and accessed in different ways. One of the long-term outcomes of this project is to help us bring some of these access arrangements closer together.

The first of these three sets of data is the Open UK Web Archive, accessible at This is a selective archive, consisting of resources selected by curators at the Library and among partner organisations. The archived sites are made available publicly by permission of the site owners.

Since April 2013 the Library, in partnership with the five other legal deposit libraries for the UK, have had the right to receive a copy of all non-print publications from the UK; a framework known as Non-Print Legal Deposit. As I write, the second “domain crawl” is under way; our annual archiving of all the web content we know to be from the UK. The Legal Deposit UK Web Archive is, however, only available to users on premises controlled by one of the legal deposit libraries.

The third component of our holdings is the one with which this project is concerned: the JISC UK Web Domain Dataset. This is a copy of the holdings of the Internet Archive for the .uk top level domain for the period 1996 to 2013. The search and analysis interface for this is not yet publicly available, although individual items within it are available from the Internet Archive’s own site if you know the URL you need. There are also several datasets derived from it available for download on a public domain basis.

Although not a complete record of the UK web for that period, it is the most comprehensive such archive in existence. We are delighted to be working with arts and humanities researchers to develop the next generation of search and analysis tools to interrogate this unique dataset. Over time, those new tools should also greatly enhance the ways in which users can work with all three components of our web archives for the UK.

Recreational bugs: the limits of representing the past through web archives

This is a post from team member Josh Cowls, cross-posted from his blog. Josh is also on Twitter: @JoshCowls.

I am in Aarhus this week for the ‘Web Archiving and Archived Web’ seminar organised by Netlab at Aarhus University. Before the seminar got underway, I had time to walk around ‘The Old Town’ (Den Gamle By), a vibrant, open-air reconstruction of historic Danish buildings from the eighteenth century to the present. The Old Town is described as an open-air museum, but in many ways it’s much more than that: it’s filled with actors who walk around impersonating townsfolk from across history, interacting with guests to bring the old town more vividly to life.


As it turned out, an afternoon spent in The Old Town has provided a great theoretical context for the web archiving seminar. Interest in web archiving has grown significantly in recent years, as the breadth of participants – scholars, curators and technologists – represented at the seminar shows. But web archiving remains replete with methodological and theoretical questions which are only starting to be answered.

One of the major themes already emerging from the discussions relates exactly how the act of web archiving is conceptualised. A popular myth is that web archives, particularly those accessible in the Internet Archive through the Wayback Machine interface, serve as direct, faithful representations of the web as it used to be. It’s easy to see why this view can seem seductive: the Wayback Machine offers an often seamless experience which functions much like the live web itself: enter URL, select date, surf the web of the past. Yet, as everyone at the seminar already knows painfully well, there are myriad reasons why this is a false assumption. Even within a single archive, plenty of discrepancies emerge, in terms of when each page was archived, exactly what was archived, and so on. Combining data from multiple archives is exponentially more problematic still.

Moreover, the emergence of ‘Web 2.0′ platforms such as social networks which have transformed the live web experience have proved difficult to archive. Web archiving emerged to suit the ‘Web 1.0′ era, a primarily ‘old media’ environment of text, still images and other content joined together, crucially, by hyperlinks. But with more people sharing more of their lives online with more sophisticated expressive technology, the data flowing over the Internet is of a qualitatively richer variety. Some of the more dramatic outcomes of this shift have already emerged – such as Edward Snowden’s explosive NSA revelations, or the incredible value of personal data to corporations – but the broader-based implications of this data for our understanding of society are still emerging.

Web archives may be one of the ways in which for scholars of the present and future learn more about contemporary society. Yet the potential this offers must be accompanied by a keener understanding of what archives do and don’t represent. Most fundamentally, the myth that web archives faithfully represent what the web as it was needs to be exposed and explained. Web archives can be a more or less accurate representation of the web of the past, but they can never be a perfect copy. The ‘Old Town’ in Aarhus is a great recreation of the past, but I was obviously never under the illusion that I was actually seeing the past – those costumed townsfolk were actors after all. I was always instinctively aware, moreover, that the museum’s curators affected what I saw. Yet given that they are, and given the seemingly neutral nature implied by the term ‘archive’, this trap is more easily fallen into in the case of web archives. Understanding that web archives, however seamless, will never be a perfectly faithful recreation of the experience of users at the time – or put even more simply, that these efforts are always a recreation and not the original experience itself – is an important first step in a more appropriate appreciation of the opportunities that they offer.

Moreover, occasions like this seminar give scholars at the forefront of preserving and using archived material from the web a chance to reflect on the significance of the design decisions taken now around data capture and analysis for generations of researchers in future. History may be written by the victors, but web history is facilitated, in essence, by predictors: those charged with anticipating exactly which data, tools and techniques will be most valuable to posterity.

How big is the UK web?

shutterstock_125086040The British Library is about to embark on its annual task of archiving the entire UK web space. We will be pushing the button, sending out our ‘bots to crawl every British domain for storage in the UK Legal deposit web archive. How much will we capture? Even our experts can only make an educated guess.

You’ve probably played the time-honoured village fete game, to guess how many jelly beans are in the jar and the winner gets a prize? Well perhaps we can ask you to guess the size of the UK internet and the nearest gets … the glory of being right. Some facts from last year might help.

2013 Web Crawl
In 2013 the Library conducted the first crawl of all .uk websites. We started with 3.86 million seeds (websites), which led to the capture of 1.9 billion URLs (web pages, docs, images). All this resulted in 30.84 terabytes (TB) of data! It took the library robots 70 days to collect.

In addition to the .uk domains the Library has the scope to collect websites that are hosted in the UK so we will therefore attempt to geolocate IP addresses within the geographical confines of the UK. This means that we will be pulling in many .com, .net, .info and many other Top Level Domains (TLDs). How many extra websites? How much data? We just don’t know at this time.

A huge issue in collecting the web is the large number of duplicates that are captured and saved, something that can add a great deal to the volume collected. Of the 1.9 billion web pages etc. a significant number are probably copies and our technical team have worked hard this time to attempt to reduce this or ‘de-duplicate’. We are, however, uncertain at the moment as to how much effect this will eventually have on the total volume of data collected.

In summary then, in 2014 we will be looking to collect all of the .uk domain names plus all the websites that we can find that are hosted in the UK (.com, .net, .info etc.), overall a big increase in the number of ‘seeds’ (websites). It is hard, however, to predict what effect these changes will have compared to last year. What the final numbers might be is anyone’s guess? What do you think?

Let us know in the comments below, or on twitter (@UKWebArchive) YOUR predictions for 2014 – Number of URLs, size in terabytes (TBs) and (if you are feeling very brave), the number of hosts e.g. organisations like the BBC and NHS consist of lots of websites each but are one ‘host’.

We want:

  • URLs (in billions)
  • Size (in terabytes)
  • Hosts (in millions)


We will announce the winner when all the data is safely on our servers sometime in the summer. Good luck.

First posted at by Jason Webber,2 June 2014