The impact of website size and volume, rich files, number of articles and website links on the visibility of the top 100 Webometric ranking websites'

Nouruzinia, Hanan; Farhadpoor, Mohammad Reza

doi:10.22055/slis.2020.25738.1481

The impact of website size and volume, rich files, number of articles and website links on the visibility of the top 100 Webometric ranking websites'

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Hanan Nouruzinia ¹

Mohammad Reza Farhadpoor ²

¹ Library and Information Science Department, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran

² Information Management Dept., Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22055/slis.2020.25738.1481

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Academic websites by introducing history, goals, educational, research, administrative and extracurricular services, and the recruitment of students, faculty and staff, play an important role in the dissemination of educational, research and administrative information of universities. The web is a vast collection of heterogeneous information that are interconnected through links. the information on the web is not organized properly, and this heterogeneous nature of information imposed disordered conditions on the web. However, the organization may provide a large amount of information on its website, but if retrieval of it is difficult, its usefulness will be reduced. Furthermore, a website may have a high level of interaction, but if users can not have access to it, this level of interaction will not be significant. This indicates a key problem in that website’s visibility and accessibility. Visibility is a very important metric in Webometrics studies, so that the usefulness of the inventories depends on how its content is visible, and the numbers in the inventory is a good indicator for measuring visibility. The visibility of a site also affects its coverage and retrieval by search engines. Accordingly, visibility and clarity are related to enabling interconnections in a space that todays have found a great importance. The topic of web visibility and its important role in different rankings of universities and higher education institutions has been the subject of several models in this field. With regard to the comprehensiveness of the Fishkin & Pollard’s (2007) industry model, this study intends to examine the characteristics of the top 100 web sites in webometric ranking system. So the main question is, what is the status of the site size, the rich files, and the number of articles, the site links, and the visibility of the top 100 Web sites in Webometric ranking system? And is the size of the website, the number of information rich files, the number of articles retrieved from Google Scholar and Web Links affect their visibility?
Methodology: : The present study is an applied research in terms of its objective, and since it seeks to describe the status of the university's superior university webometric system in terms of visibility characteristics, it has been conducted as an analytical survey. Data collection was done by library and field methods in the first six months of year 2017. For this data collection, the checklists according to Fishkin and Pollard’s (2007) model, containing 30 items for the four subsets of visibility, size of website (including the number of web pages, website size in megabytes, and page rank), rich information files (including PDF, DOC, PPT, PS and RTF) and the number of articles retrieved through Google Scholar, was used. The validity of the instrument was formally determined and its reliability was calculated by using the retest method, and the correlation of the results was obtained (r = 0.89), which it confirms the reliability of the instrument and then various instruments were used to evaluate each of them. Data analysis was done using the SPSS 21software.
Findings: The results showed that 14 features of the industry model were observed in 100% of the websites. The size of the website is more than 89% between 0.59to 7.39 MB. The results of the hypothesis test showed that the size and volume of the site (r = 0.637) at the significance level (Sig. 0.002), the number of enriched files (r = 0.546) at the significance level (Sig. 0.001), receiving referral links (r = 0. 674) at the significant level (Sig. 0.000), and the number of articles retrieved from Google Scholar (r = 0.654) at the significance level (Sig. 0.001) has a direct impact on visibility. In addition, the intensity of the relationship is stronger for the variable of referred links compared to the other three variables.
Discussion: The visibility of a website is an important and essential component because it represents accessibility and find ability of a web site by the various search engines in the heterogeneous web environment. The effect of different components on visibility can be investigated from various aspects. For example, receiving referred links on the one hand points to sharing of a website content with other websites, which itself can be the reason for the validity of information content of a site; on the other hand, the visibility of a website and the ability to retrieve it by search engines refers indirectly to links from other sites. The multiplicity of links within the website and from the subpages and subset of a website can also indicate the distribution of the information content of the website on its various pages. This also refers to the architecture of the website and is associated to the size of the website and the number of pages. Therefore, identifying different factors requires further studies in the future.

Keywords

Webometric Rating

Visibility

Industry Model of Visibility

University Rating

Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society for the Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296-1302.

Amiri, M. R., Karami, S., Farhadi, A., Rezaei, N., & Zareian, S. (2016). Evaluation of hospitals’ websites of Hamedan university of medical sciences based on webometrics criteria in 2014. Pajouhan Scientific Journal, 14(2), 53-61.

Anwarul Islam, M., & Saiful Alam, M. (2011). Webometric study of private universities in Bangladesh. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 16(2), 115-126.

Arunachalam, S. M., Koumpis, A., & Handschuh, S. (2018). Webometrics: Some critical issues of WWW size estimation methods. Multimodal Technologies and Interact, 2(12), 1-11. doi:doi:10.3390/mti2020012

Bakeri Abu Baka, A., & Leyni, N. (2015). Webometric study of world class universities websites. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) Special Issue Bibliometrics and Scientometrics, 105-115.

Bhandari, D. (2017). Improving online visibility of the web pages with search engine optimization. (BA. Thesis). Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vantaa. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/08c6/755eefc5eaff2420cfe1c0c9ea587a501129.pdf

Binnedell, M. (2003). The WBPN model: A proposed design approach to maximize website visibility to search engines. (BA Thesis). Cape Technikon, Cape Town. Retrieved from http://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201028542325214.pub

Bjorneborn, L. (2004). Small-world link structures across anacademic web space: A library and information science approach. (PhD.). Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen.

Chambers, R., & Weideman, M. (2005). Search engine visibility: A pilot study towards the design of a model for e-commerce websites. Paper presented at the The 7th Annual Conference on WWW Applications, 29–31 August, Cape Town.

Conway, M., & Dorner, D. (2004). An evaluation of New Zealand political party websites. Information Research, 9(4).

Danesh, F., Soheili, F., & Mesrinejad, F. (2011). Visibility, Web Impact Factor, and Collaboration among LIS Schools in US. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 21(4), 141-154.

Davidson, P. M., Newton, P. J., Ferguson, C., Daly, J., Elliott, D., Homer, C., . . . Jackson, D. (2014). Rating and ranking the role of bibliometrics and webometrics in nursing and midwifery. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1-6. doi:doi:10.1155/2014/135812

Fan, W., Schaupp, L. C., & Krishen, A. (2006). Web site success metrics: Addressing the duality of goals. Communications of the ACM, 49(12).

Fink , D., & Nyaga , C. (2009). Evaluating web site quality: The value of a multi paradigm approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(2), 259-273.

Fishkin, R., & Pollard, J. (2007). Search engine ranking factors V2.

Ghare, M. A., Zakerian, A., & Zakerian, A. (2016). Prioritization of the academic websites of Payame Noor university with determination of their position in the world. Communication Management in Sport Media, 3(4), 59-68.

Gharibeniazi, M., Karbala Aghaei Kamran, M., & Ghaebi, A. (2015). Website quality evaluation methods. Web-QEM and Web Assessment index methods. Journal of Library and Information Science Studies, 22(15), 119-142. doi:doi:10.22055/slis.2015.11321

Guskov, A. E., Bykhovtsev, E. S., & Kosyakov, D. V. (2015). Alternative webometrics: Study of the websites of scientific organizations. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 42(4), 274-289.

Hassanzade, M., & Hosseini, S. M. (2010). Web Accessibility: Concepts and Applications. Journal of Management System, 20(46), 33-43.

Hussien, A. S. (2014). Factors Affect Search Engine Optimization. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS), 14(9).

Jalal, S. K., Sutradhar, B., Sahu, K., Mukhopadhyay, P., & Biswas, S. C. (2015). Search engines and alternative data sources in webometric research: An exploratory study. DESIDOC: Journal of Library & Information Technology, 35(6), 427-435.

Jeyashree, S., & Ravichandran, R. (2013). Perspectives of webometric tools for web impact assessment studies: A review. International Journal of Library Science, 2(2), 43-48., 2(2), 43-48. doi:DOI: 10.5923/j.library.20130202.03

Longva, L. (2012). Webometrics- ranking web of repositories: Tocount and not to count. Sciecom Info: Nordic-Baltic Forum for Scientific Communication, 2, 1-2.

Luzón, M.-J. (2009). Scholarly hyper writing: The function of links in academic weblogs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 75-89.

Madhusudhan, M., & Prakash, S. (2013). Websites of Indian institutes of technology: A webometric study. International Journal of Library and Information Studies, 3(4), 93-107.

Makori, E. O., & Mauti, N. (2016). Digital technology acceptance in transformation of university libraries and higher education institutions in

Kenya. Library Philosophy and Practice (e journal).

Osunade, O., & Ogundele, C. O. (2012). Evaluation of the university of Ibadan website using webometric ranking parameters. Transnational Journal of Science and Technology, 2(3), 66-78.

Pandy, R. K. (2014). Empirical validation of webometrics based ranking of world universities. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies (IJCSIT), 5(1), 580-584.

Pavlina, K. (2012). Webometric ranking of European universities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3788-3792.

Permatasari, H. P., Harlena, S., Erlangga, D., & Chandra, R. (2013). Effect of social media on website popularity: Differences between public and private universities in Indonesia. World of Computer Science and Information Technology Journal (WCSIT), 3(2), 32-37.

Rahardja, U., Dewi, E. N., & Lutfiani, N. (2017). Increased webometrics rank with Inbound and outbound methods in higher education. Jurnal Ilmiah SISFOTENIKA, 7(1), 1-12.

Ravayati, N., & Dayani, M. H. (2011). Iranian university websites: Link analysis using WIF, clustering and two-dimension mapping techniques. Library and Information Science, 13(4), 101-142.

Sajed, T., Nourmohammadi, H. A., & Asadi, S. (2016). Measuring keyword density of websites of MSRT universities’ Libraries. Scientometrics Research Journal, 2(3), 1-26.

Sharma, D., & Bansal, M. (2016). Improving webpage visibility by enhancing massive semantic content using on-page optimization technique. Paper presented at the International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), Coimbatore.

Shukla, S. H., & Poluru, L. (2012). Webometric analysis and indicators of selected Indian state universities. Information Studies, 18(2), 79-104.

Sultana, S. (2014). A Webometric Analysis of Private University Websites in Bangladesh. (MSc. Dissertation). University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, Dhaka.

Thelwall, M. (2010). Webometrics: emergent or doomed? Information Research, 15(4).

Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 1: Citations and links to academic articles from the Web. El profesional de la información, 24(5), 587-606.

Visser, E. B. (2007). Search engine optimization elements’ effect on website visibility: The western cape real estate SMME sector. (MSc. thesis). Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Peninsula. Retrieved from http://web-visibility.co.za/0086-thesis-2006-visser-search-engine-optimisation-website-visibility-smme.pdf

Weideman, M. (2013). Comparative analysis of homepage website visibility and academic rankings for UK universities. Information research: An international electronic journal, 18(4).

Weideman, M. (2009). Website visibility: The theory and practice of improving rankings. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Weideman, M., & Schwenke, F. (2006). The influence that Java Script™ has on the visibility of a website to search engines – a pilot study. Information Research.

Yaminfirooz, M., Riahi, A., & Babaei, M. (2015). Comparison of webometrics indicators of northern universities of medical sciences. Caspian Journal of Scientometrics, 2(2), 7-15.

Yoo, S., & Jin, J. (2004). Evaluation of the home page of the top 100 university websites. Proceedings of the Academy of Information and Management Sciences, 8(2), 57-60.

Zhang, J., & Dimitroff, A. (2005a). The impact of webpage content characteristics on webpage visibility in search engine results (Part I). Information Processing Management, 41, 665-690.

Zhang, J., & Dimitroff, A. (2005b). The impact of metadata implementationon webpage visibility in search engine results (Part II). Information Processing Management, 41, 691-715.