This dataset was used in the Kaggle Wikipedia Web Traffic forecasting competition. It contains 145063 daily time series representing the number of hits or web traffic for a set of Wikipedia pages from 2015-07-01 to 2017-09-10.

The original dataset contains missing values. They have been simply replaced by zeros.

This Website Statistics dataset has four resources showing usage of the Lincolnshire Open Data website. Web analytics terms used in each resource are defined in their accompanying Metadata file.

• Website Usage Statistics: This document shows a statistical summary of usage of the Lincolnshire Open Data site for the latest calendar year.

• Website Statistics Summary: This dataset shows a website statistics summary for the Lincolnshire Open Data site for the latest calendar year.

• Webpage Statistics: This dataset shows statistics for individual Webpages on the Lincolnshire Open Data site by calendar year.

• Dataset Statistics: This dataset shows cumulative totals for Datasets on the Lincolnshire Open Data site that have also been published on the national Open Data site Data.Gov.UK - see the Source link.

  Note: Website and Webpage statistics (the first three resources above) show only UK users, and exclude API calls (automated requests for datasets). The Dataset Statistics are confined to users with javascript enabled, which excludes web crawlers and API calls.

These Website Statistics resources are updated annually in January by the Lincolnshire County Council Business Intelligence team. For any enquiries about the information contact opendata@lincolnshire.gov.uk.

Context

The Google Merchandise Store sells Google branded merchandise. The data is typical of what you would see for an ecommerce website.

Content

The sample dataset contains Google Analytics 360 data from the Google Merchandise Store, a real ecommerce store. The Google Merchandise Store sells Google branded merchandise. The data is typical of what you would see for an ecommerce website. It includes the following kinds of information:

Traffic source data: information about where website visitors originate. This includes data about organic traffic, paid search traffic, display traffic, etc. Content data: information about the behavior of users on the site. This includes the URLs of pages that visitors look at, how they interact with content, etc. Transactional data: information about the transactions that occur on the Google Merchandise Store website.

Fork this kernel to get started.

Acknowledgements

Data from: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/table/bigquery-public-data:google_analytics_sample.ga_sessions_20170801

Banner Photo by Edho Pratama from Unsplash.

Inspiration

What is the total number of transactions generated per device browser in July 2017?

The real bounce rate is defined as the percentage of visits with a single pageview. What was the real bounce rate per traffic source?

What was the average number of product pageviews for users who made a purchase in July 2017?

What was the average number of product pageviews for users who did not make a purchase in July 2017?

What was the average total transactions per user that made a purchase in July 2017?

What is the average amount of money spent per session in July 2017?

What is the sequence of pages viewed?

Context

This file contains 5 years of daily time series data for several measures of traffic on a statistical forecasting teaching notes website whose alias is statforecasting.com. The variables have complex seasonality that is keyed to the day of the week and to the academic calendar. The patterns you you see here are similar in principle to what you would see in other daily data with day-of-week and time-of-year effects. Some good exercises are to develop a 1-day-ahead forecasting model, a 7-day ahead forecasting model, and an entire-next-week forecasting model (i.e., next 7 days) for unique visitors.

Content

The variables are daily counts of page loads, unique visitors, first-time visitors, and returning visitors to an academic teaching notes website. There are 2167 rows of data spanning the date range from September 14, 2014, to August 19, 2020. A visit is defined as a stream of hits on one or more pages on the site on a given day by the same user, as identified by IP address. Multiple individuals with a shared IP address (e.g., in a computer lab) are considered as a single user, so real users may be undercounted to some extent. A visit is classified as "unique" if a hit from the same IP address has not come within the last 6 hours. Returning visitors are identified by cookies if those are accepted. All others are classified as first-time visitors, so the count of unique visitors is the sum of the counts of returning and first-time visitors by definition. The data was collected through a traffic monitoring service known as StatCounter.

Inspiration

This file and a number of other sample datasets can also be found on the website of RegressIt, a free Excel add-in for linear and logistic regression which I originally developed for use in the course whose website generated the traffic data given here. If you use Excel to some extent as well as Python or R, you might want to try it out on this dataset.

General data recollected for the studio " Analysis of the Quantitative Impact of Social Networks on Web Traffic of Cybermedia in the 27 Countries of the European Union". Four research questions are posed: what percentage of the total web traffic generated by cybermedia in the European Union comes from social networks? Is said percentage higher or lower than that provided through direct traffic and through the use of search engines via SEO positioning? Which social networks have a greater impact? And is there any degree of relationship between the specific weight of social networks in the web traffic of a cybermedia and circumstances such as the average duration of the user's visit, the number of page views or the bounce rate understood in its formal aspect of not performing any kind of interaction on the visited page beyond reading its content? To answer these questions, we have first proceeded to a selection of the cybermedia with the highest web traffic of the 27 countries that are currently part of the European Union after the United Kingdom left on December 31, 2020. In each nation we have selected five media using a combination of the global web traffic metrics provided by the tools Alexa (https://www.alexa.com/), which ceased to be operational on May 1, 2022, and SimilarWeb (https:// www.similarweb.com/). We have not used local metrics by country since the results obtained with these first two tools were sufficiently significant and our objective is not to establish a ranking of cybermedia by nation but to examine the relevance of social networks in their web traffic. In all cases, cybermedia whose property corresponds to a journalistic company have been selected, ruling out those belonging to telecommunications portals or service providers; in some cases they correspond to classic information companies (both newspapers and televisions) while in others they refer to digital natives, without this circumstance affecting the nature of the research proposed.
Below we have proceeded to examine the web traffic data of said cybermedia. The period corresponding to the months of October, November and December 2021 and January, February and March 2022 has been selected. We believe that this six-month stretch allows possible one-time variations to be overcome for a month, reinforcing the precision of the data obtained. To secure this data, we have used the SimilarWeb tool, currently the most precise tool that exists when examining the web traffic of a portal, although it is limited to that coming from desktops and laptops, without taking into account those that come from mobile devices, currently impossible to determine with existing measurement tools on the market. It includes:

Web traffic general data: average visit duration, pages per visit and bounce rate Web traffic origin by country Percentage of traffic generated from social media over total web traffic Distribution of web traffic generated from social networks Comparison of web traffic generated from social netwoks with direct and search procedures

Click Web Traffic Combined with Transaction Data: A New Dimension of Shopper Insights

Consumer Edge is a leader in alternative consumer data for public and private investors and corporate clients. Click enhances the unparalleled accuracy of CE Transact by allowing investors to delve deeper and browse further into global online web traffic for CE Transact companies and more. Leverage the unique fusion of web traffic and transaction datasets to understand the addressable market and understand spending behavior on consumer and B2B websites. See the impact of changes in marketing spend, search engine algorithms, and social media awareness on visits to a merchant’s website, and discover the extent to which product mix and pricing drive or hinder visits and dwell time. Plus, Click uncovers a more global view of traffic trends in geographies not covered by Transact. Doubleclick into better forecasting, with Click.

Consumer Edge’s Click is available in machine-readable file delivery and enables: • Comprehensive Global Coverage: Insights across 620+ brands and 59 countries, including key markets in the US, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. • Integrated Data Ecosystem: Click seamlessly maps web traffic data to CE entities and stock tickers, enabling a unified view across various business intelligence tools. • Near Real-Time Insights: Daily data delivery with a 5-day lag ensures timely, actionable insights for agile decision-making. • Enhanced Forecasting Capabilities: Combining web traffic indicators with transaction data helps identify patterns and predict revenue performance.

Use Case: Analyze Year Over Year Growth Rate by Region

Problem A public investor wants to understand how a company’s year-over-year growth differs by region.

Solution The firm leveraged Consumer Edge Click data to: • Gain visibility into key metrics like views, bounce rate, visits, and addressable spend • Analyze year-over-year growth rates for a time period • Breakout data by geographic region to see growth trends

Metrics Include: • Spend • Items • Volume • Transactions • Price Per Volume

Inquire about a Click subscription to perform more complex, near real-time analyses on public tickers and private brands as well as for industries beyond CPG like: • Monitor web traffic as a leading indicator of stock performance and consumer demand • Analyze customer interest and sentiment at the brand and sub-brand levels

Consumer Edge offers a variety of datasets covering the US, Europe (UK, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain), and across the globe, with subscription options serving a wide range of business needs.

Consumer Edge is the Leader in Data-Driven Insights Focused on the Global Consumer

Introduction

The GiGL Spaces to Visit dataset provides locations and boundaries for open space sites in Greater London that are available to the public as destinations for leisure, activities and community engagement. It includes green corridors that provide opportunities for walking and cycling.

The dataset has been created by Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL). As London’s Environmental Records Centre, GiGL mobilises, curates and shares data that underpin our knowledge of London’s natural environment. We provide impartial evidence to support informed discussion and decision making in policy and practice.

GiGL maps under licence from the Greater London Authority.

Description

This dataset is a sub-set of the GiGL Open Space dataset, the most comprehensive dataset available of open spaces in London. Sites are selected for inclusion in Spaces to Visit based on their public accessibility and likelihood that people would be interested in visiting.

The dataset is a mapped Geographic Information System (GIS) polygon dataset where one polygon (or multi-polygon) represents one space. As well as site boundaries, the dataset includes information about a site’s name, size and type (e.g. park, playing field etc.).

GiGL developed the Spaces to Visit dataset to support anyone who is interested in London’s open spaces - including community groups, web and app developers, policy makers and researchers - with an open licence data source. More detailed and extensive data are available under GiGL data use licences for GIGL partners, researchers and students. Information services are also available for ecological consultants, biological recorders and community volunteers – please see www.gigl.org.uk for more information.

Please note that access and opening times are subject to change (particularly at the current time) so if you are planning to visit a site check on the local authority or site website that it is open.

The dataset is updated on a quarterly basis. If you have questions about this dataset please contact GiGL’s GIS and Data Officer.

Data sources

The boundaries and information in this dataset, are a combination of data collected during the London Survey Method habitat and open space survey programme (1986 – 2008) and information provided to GiGL from other sources since. These sources include London borough surveys, land use datasets, volunteer surveys, feedback from the public, park friends’ groups, and updates made as part of GiGL’s on-going data validation and verification process.

Due to data availability, some areas are more up-to-date than others. We are continually working on updating and improving this dataset. If you have any additional information or corrections for sites included in the Spaces to Visit dataset please contact GiGL’s GIS and Data Officer.

NOTE: The dataset contains OS data © Crown copyright and database rights 2025. The site boundaries are based on Ordnance Survey mapping, and the data are published under Ordnance Survey's 'presumption to publish'. When using these data please acknowledge GiGL and Ordnance Survey as the source of the information using the following citation:

‘Dataset created by Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL), 2025 – Contains Ordnance Survey and public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 ’

Context

Uplift modeling is an important yet novel area of research in machine learning which aims to explain and to estimate the causal impact of a treatment at the individual level. In the digital advertising industry, the treatment is exposure to different ads and uplift modeling is used to direct marketing efforts towards users for whom it is the most efficient . The data is a collection collection of 13 million samples from a randomized control trial, scaling up previously available datasets by a healthy 590x factor.

###
###

Content

The dataset was created by The Criteo AI Lab .The dataset consists of 13M rows, each one representing a user with 12 features, a treatment indicator and 2 binary labels (visits and conversions). Positive labels mean the user visited/converted on the advertiser website during the test period (2 weeks). The global treatment ratio is 84.6%. It is usual that advertisers keep only a small control population as it costs them in potential revenue.

Following is a detailed description of the features:

• f0, f1, f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f7, f8, f9, f10, f11: feature values (dense, float)
• treatment: treatment group (1 = treated, 0 = control)
• conversion: whether a conversion occured for this user (binary, label)
• visit: whether a visit occured for this user (binary, label)
• exposure: treatment effect, whether the user has been effectively exposed (binary)

###

Context

Uplift modeling is an important yet novel area of research in machine learning which aims to explain and to estimate the causal impact of a treatment at the individual level. In the digital advertising industry, the treatment is exposure to different ads and uplift modeling is used to direct marketing efforts towards users for whom it is the most efficient . The data is a collection collection of 13 million samples from a randomized control trial, scaling up previously available datasets by a healthy 590x factor.

###
###

Content

The dataset was created by The Criteo AI Lab .The dataset consists of 13M rows, each one representing a user with 12 features, a treatment indicator and 2 binary labels (visits and conversions). Positive labels mean the user visited/converted on the advertiser website during the test period (2 weeks). The global treatment ratio is 84.6%. It is usual that advertisers keep only a small control population as it costs them in potential revenue.

Following is a detailed description of the features:

• f0, f1, f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f7, f8, f9, f10, f11: feature values (dense, float)
• treatment: treatment group (1 = treated, 0 = control)
• conversion: whether a conversion occured for this user (binary, label)
• visit: whether a visit occured for this user (binary, label)
• exposure: treatment effect, whether the user has been effectively exposed (binary)

###

Starter Kernels

• HistGradientBoostingClassifier Base Model

Acknowledgement

The data provided for paper: "A Large Scale Benchmark for Uplift Modeling"

https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/criteo-uplift-dataset/large-scale-benchmark.pdf

• Eustache Diemert CAIL e.diemert@criteo.com
• Artem Betlei CAIL & Université Grenoble Alpes a.betlei@criteo.com
• Christophe Renaudin CAIL c.renaudin@criteo.com
• Massih-Reza Amini Université Grenoble Alpes massih-reza.amini@imag.fr

For privacy reasons the data has been sub-sampled non-uniformly so that the original incrementality level cannot be deduced from the dataset while preserving a realistic, challenging benchmark. Feature names have been anonymized and their values randomly projected so as to keep predictive power while making it practically impossible to recover the original features or user context.

Inspiration

We can foresee related usages such as but not limited to:

• Uplift modeling
• Interactions between features and treatment
• Heterogeneity of treatment

More Readings

• Supercharging customer touchpoints with uplift modeling
• CasualML
• PyLift

MORE DATASETs ...

Context

The dataset generated by an E-commerce website which sells a variety of products at its online platform. The records user behaviour of its customers and stores it as a log. However, most of the times, users do not buy the products instantly and there is a time gap during which the customer might surf the internet and maybe visit competitor websites. Now, to improve sales of products, website owner has hired an Adtech company which built a system such that ads are being shown for owner products on its partner websites. If a user comes to owner website and searches for a product, and then visits these partner websites or apps, his/her previously viewed items or their similar items are shown on as an ad. If the user clicks this ad, he/she will be redirected to the owner website and might buy the product.

The task is to predict the probability i.e. probability of user clicking the ad which is shown to them on the partner websites for the next 7 days on the basis of historical view log data, ad impression data and user data.

Content

You are provided with the view log of users (2018/10/15 - 2018/12/11) and the product description collected from the owner website. We also provide the training data and test data containing details for ad impressions at the partner websites(Train + Test). Train data contains the impression logs during 2018/11/15 – 2018/12/13 along with the label which specifies whether the ad is clicked or not. Your model will be evaluated on the test data which have impression logs during 2018/12/12 – 2018/12/18 without the labels. You are provided with the following files:

• train.zip: This contains 3 files and description of each is given below:
• train.csv
• view_log.csv

• item_data.csv

  • test.csv: test file contains the impressions for which the participants need to predict the click rate sample_submission.csv: This file contains the format in which you have to submit your predictions.

Inspiration

• Predict the probability probability of user clicking the ad which is shown to them on the partner websites for the next 7 days on the basis of historical view log data, ad impression data and user data.

The evaluated metric could be "area under the ROC curve" between the predicted probability and the observed target.

The dataset collection in question is a compilation of related data tables sourced from the website of Tilastokeskus (Statistics Finland) in Finland. The data present in the collection is organized in a tabular format comprising of rows and columns, each holding related data. The collection includes several tables, each of which represents different years, providing a temporal view of the data. The description provided by the data source, Tilastokeskuksen palvelurajapinta (Statistics Finland's service interface), suggests that the data is likely to be statistical in nature and could be related to regional statistics, given the nature of the source. This dataset is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.fi).

Unlock the Power of Behavioural Data with GDPR-Compliant Clickstream Insights.

Swash clickstream data offers a comprehensive and GDPR-compliant dataset sourced from users worldwide, encompassing both desktop and mobile browsing behaviour. Here's an in-depth look at what sets us apart and how our data can benefit your organisation.

User-Centric Approach: Unlike traditional data collection methods, we take a user-centric approach by rewarding users for the data they willingly provide. This unique methodology ensures transparent data collection practices, encourages user participation, and establishes trust between data providers and consumers.

Wide Coverage and Varied Categories: Our clickstream data covers diverse categories, including search, shopping, and URL visits. Whether you are interested in understanding user preferences in e-commerce, analysing search behaviour across different industries, or tracking website visits, our data provides a rich and multi-dimensional view of user activities.

GDPR Compliance and Privacy: We prioritise data privacy and strictly adhere to GDPR guidelines. Our data collection methods are fully compliant, ensuring the protection of user identities and personal information. You can confidently leverage our clickstream data without compromising privacy or facing regulatory challenges.

Market Intelligence and Consumer Behaviuor: Gain deep insights into market intelligence and consumer behaviour using our clickstream data. Understand trends, preferences, and user behaviour patterns by analysing the comprehensive user-level, time-stamped raw or processed data feed. Uncover valuable information about user journeys, search funnels, and paths to purchase to enhance your marketing strategies and drive business growth.

High-Frequency Updates and Consistency: We provide high-frequency updates and consistent user participation, offering both historical data and ongoing daily delivery. This ensures you have access to up-to-date insights and a continuous data feed for comprehensive analysis. Our reliable and consistent data empowers you to make accurate and timely decisions.

Custom Reporting and Analysis: We understand that every organisation has unique requirements. That's why we offer customisable reporting options, allowing you to tailor the analysis and reporting of clickstream data to your specific needs. Whether you need detailed metrics, visualisations, or in-depth analytics, we provide the flexibility to meet your reporting requirements.

Data Quality and Credibility: We take data quality seriously. Our data sourcing practices are designed to ensure responsible and reliable data collection. We implement rigorous data cleaning, validation, and verification processes, guaranteeing the accuracy and reliability of our clickstream data. You can confidently rely on our data to drive your decision-making processes.

This Kaggle dataset comes from an output dataset that powers my March Madness Data Analysis dashboard in Domo. - Click here to view this dashboard: Dashboard Link - Click here to view this dashboard features in a Domo blog post: Hoops, Data, and Madness: Unveiling the Ultimate NCAA Dashboard

This dataset offers one the most robust resource you will find to discover key insights through data science and data analytics using historical NCAA Division 1 men's basketball data. This data, sourced from KenPom, goes as far back as 2002 and is updated with the latest 2025 data. This dataset is meticulously structured to provide every piece of information that I could pull from this site as an open-source tool for analysis for March Madness.

Key features of the dataset include: - Historical Data: Provides all historical KenPom data from 2002 to 2025 from the Efficiency, Four Factors (Offense & Defense), Point Distribution, Height/Experience, and Misc. Team Stats endpoints from KenPom's website. Please note that the Height/Experience data only goes as far back as 2007, but every other source contains data from 2002 onward. - Data Granularity: This dataset features an individual line item for every NCAA Division 1 men's basketball team in every season that contains every KenPom metric that you can possibly think of. This dataset has the ability to serve as a single source of truth for your March Madness analysis and provide you with the granularity necessary to perform any type of analysis you can think of. - 2025 Tournament Insights: Contains all seed and region information for the 2025 NCAA March Madness tournament. Please note that I will continually update this dataset with the seed and region information for previous tournaments as I continue to work on this dataset.

These datasets were created by downloading the raw CSV files for each season for the various sections on KenPom's website (Efficiency, Offense, Defense, Point Distribution, Summary, Miscellaneous Team Stats, and Height). All of these raw files were uploaded to Domo and imported into a dataflow using Domo's Magic ETL. In these dataflows, all of the column headers for each of the previous seasons are standardized to the current 2025 naming structure so all of the historical data can be viewed under the exact same field names. All of these cleaned datasets are then appended together, and some additional clean up takes place before ultimately creating the intermediate (INT) datasets that are uploaded to this Kaggle dataset. Once all of the INT datasets were created, I joined all of the tables together on the team name and season so all of these different metrics can be viewed under one single view. From there, I joined an NCAAM Conference & ESPN Team Name Mapping table to add a conference field in its full length and respective acronyms they are known by as well as the team name that ESPN currently uses. Please note that this reference table is an aggregated view of all of the different conferences a team has been a part of since 2002 and the different team names that KenPom has used historically, so this mapping table is necessary to map all of the teams properly and differentiate the historical conferences from their current conferences. From there, I join a reference table that includes all of the current NCAAM coaches and their active coaching lengths because the active current coaching length typically correlates to a team's success in the March Madness tournament. I also join another reference table to include the historical post-season tournament teams in the March Madness, NIT, CBI, and CIT tournaments, and I join another reference table to differentiate the teams who were ranked in the top 12 in the AP Top 25 during week 6 of the respective NCAA season. After some additional data clean-up, all of this cleaned data exports into the "DEV _ March Madness" file that contains the consolidated view of all of this data.

This dataset provides users with the flexibility to export data for further analysis in platforms such as Domo, Power BI, Tableau, Excel, and more. This dataset is designed for users who wish to conduct their own analysis, develop predictive models, or simply gain a deeper understanding of the intricacies that result in the excitement that Division 1 men's college basketball provides every year in March. Whether you are using this dataset for academic research, personal interest, or professional interest, I hope this dataset serves as a foundational tool for exploring the vast landscape of college basketball's most riveting and anticipated event of its season.

Dataset originally created 03/01/2019 UPDATE: Packaged on 04/18/2019 UPDATE: Edited README on 04/18/2019

I. About this Data Set This data set is a snapshot of work that is ongoing as a collaboration between Kluge Fellow in Digital Studies, Patrick Egan and an intern at the Library of Congress in the American Folklife Center. It contains a combination of metadata from various collections that contain audio recordings of Irish traditional music. The development of this dataset is iterative, and it integrates visualizations that follow the key principles of trust and approachability. The project, entitled, “Connections In Sound” invites you to use and re-use this data.

The text available in the Items dataset is generated from multiple collections of audio material that were discovered at the American Folklife Center. Each instance of a performance was listed and “sets” or medleys of tunes or songs were split into distinct instances in order to allow machines to read each title separately (whilst still noting that they were part of a group of tunes). The work of the intern was then reviewed before publication, and cross-referenced with the tune index at www.irishtune.info. The Items dataset consists of just over 1000 rows, with new data being added daily in a separate file.

The collections dataset contains at least 37 rows of collections that were located by a reference librarian at the American Folklife Center. This search was complemented by searches of the collections by the scholar both on the internet at https://catalog.loc.gov and by using card catalogs.

Updates to these datasets will be announced and published as the project progresses.

II. What’s included? This data set includes:

• The Items Dataset – a .CSV containing Media Note, OriginalFormat, On Website, Collection Ref, Missing In Duplication, Collection, Outside Link, Performer, Solo/multiple, Sub-item, type of tune, Tune, Position, Location, State, Date, Notes/Composer, Potential Linked Data, Instrument, Additional Notes, Tune Cleanup. This .CSV is the direct export of the Items Google Spreadsheet

III. How Was It Created? These data were created by a Kluge Fellow in Digital Studies and an intern on this program over the course of three months. By listening, transcribing, reviewing, and tagging audio recordings, these scholars improve access and connect sounds in the American Folklife Collections by focusing on Irish traditional music. Once transcribed and tagged, information in these datasets is reviewed before publication.

IV. Data Set Field Descriptions

IV

a) Collections dataset field descriptions

• ItemId – this is the identifier for the collection that was found at the AFC
• Viewed – if the collection has been viewed, or accessed in any way by the researchers.
• On LOC – whether or not there are audio recordings of this collection available on the Library of Congress website.
• On Other Website – if any of the recordings in this collection are available elsewhere on the internet
• Original Format – the format that was used during the creation of the recordings that were found within each collection
• Search – this indicates the type of search that was performed in order that resulted in locating recordings and collections within the AFC
• Collection – the official title for the collection as noted on the Library of Congress website
• State – The primary state where recordings from the collection were located
• Other States – The secondary states where recordings from the collection were located
• Era / Date – The decade or year associated with each collection
• Call Number – This is the official reference number that is used to locate the collections, both in the urls used on the Library website, and in the reference search for catalog cards (catalog cards can be searched at this address: https://memory.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/html/afccards/afccards-home.html)
• Finding Aid Online? – Whether or not a finding aid is available for this collection on the internet

b) Items dataset field descriptions

• id – the specific identification of the instance of a tune, song or dance within the dataset
• Media Note – Any information that is included with the original format, such as identification, name of physical item, additional metadata written on the physical item
• Original Format – The physical format that was used when recording each specific performance. Note: this field is used in order to calculate the number of physical items that were created in each collection such as 32 wax cylinders.
• On Webste? – Whether or not each instance of a performance is available on the Library of Congress website
• Collection Ref – The official reference number of the collection
• Missing In Duplication – This column marks if parts of some recordings had been made available on other websites, but not all of the recordings were included in duplication (see recordings from Philadelphia Céilí Group on Villanova University website)
• Collection – The official title of the collection given by the American Folklife Center
• Outside Link – If recordings are available on other websites externally
• Performer – The name of the contributor(s)
• Solo/multiple – This field is used to calculate the amount of solo performers vs group performers in each collection
• Sub-item – In some cases, physical recordings contained extra details, the sub-item column was used to denote these details
• Type of item – This column describes each individual item type, as noted by performers and collectors
• Item – The item title, as noted by performers and collectors. If an item was not described, it was entered as “unidentified”
• Position – The position on the recording (in some cases during playback, audio cassette player counter markers were used)
• Location – Local address of the recording
• State – The state where the recording was made
• Date – The date that the recording was made
• Notes/Composer – The stated composer or source of the item recorded
• Potential Linked Data – If items may be linked to other recordings or data, this column was used to provide examples of potential relationships between them
• Instrument – The instrument(s) that was used during the performance
• Additional Notes – Notes about the process of capturing, transcribing and tagging recordings (for researcher and intern collaboration purposes)
• Tune Cleanup – This column was used to tidy each item so that it could be read by machines, but also so that spelling mistakes from the Item column could be corrected, and as an aid to preserving iterations of the editing process

V. Rights statement The text in this data set was created by the researcher and intern and can be used in many different ways under creative commons with attribution. All contributions to Connections In Sound are released into the public domain as they are created. Anyone is free to use and re-use this data set in any way they want, provided reference is given to the creators of these datasets.

VI. Creator and Contributor Information

Creator: Connections In Sound

Contributors: Library of Congress Labs

VII. Contact Information Please direct all questions and comments to Patrick Egan via www.twitter.com/drpatrickegan or via his website at www.patrickegan.org. You can also get in touch with the Library of Congress Labs team via LC-Labs@loc.gov.

This dataset was extracted for a study on the evolution of Web search engine interfaces since their appearance. The well-known list of “10 blue links” has evolved into richer interfaces, often personalized to the search query, the user, and other aspects. We used the most searched queries by year to extract a representative sample of SERP from the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive has been keeping snapshots and the respective HTML version of webpages over time and tts collection contains more than 50 billion webpages. We used Python and Selenium Webdriver, for browser automation, to visit each capture online, check if the capture is valid, save the HTML version, and generate a full screenshot. The dataset contains all the extracted captures. Each capture is represented by a screenshot, an HTML file, and a files' folder. We concatenate the initial of the search engine (G) with the capture's timestamp for file naming. The filename ends with a sequential integer "-N" if the timestamp is repeated. For example, "G20070330145203-1" identifies a second capture from Google by March 30, 2007. The first is identified by "G20070330145203". Using this dataset, we analyzed how SERP evolved in terms of content, layout, design (e.g., color scheme, text styling, graphics), navigation, and file size. We have registered the appearance of SERP features and analyzed the design patterns involved in each SERP component. We found that the number of elements in SERP has been rising over the years, demanding a more extensive interface area and larger files. This systematic analysis portrays evolution trends in search engine user interfaces and, more generally, web design. We expect this work will trigger other, more specific studies that can take advantage of the dataset we provide here. This graphic represents the diversity of captures by year and search engine (Google and Bing).

Dit bestand bevat de data die zijn verzameld in het kader van het proefschrift van Sanne Elling: ‘Evaluating website quality: Five studies on user-focused evaluation methods’.Summary:The benefits of evaluating websites among potential users are widely acknowledged. There are several methods that can be used to evaluate the websites’ quality from a users’ perspective. In current practice, many evaluations are executed with inadequate methods that lack research-based validation. This thesis aims to gain more insight into evaluation methodology and to contribute to a higher standard of website evaluation in practice. A first way to evaluate website quality is measuring the users’ opinions. This is often done with questionnaires, which gather opinions in a cheap, fast, and easy way. However, many questionnaires seem to miss a solid statistical basis and a justification of the choice of quality dimensions and questions. We therefore developed the ‘Website Evaluation Questionnaire’ (WEQ), which was specifically designed for the evaluation of governmental websites. In a study in online and laboratory settings the WEQ has proved to be a valid and reliable instrument. A way to gather more specific user opinions, is inviting participants to review website pages. Participants provide their comments by clicking on a feedback button, marking a problematic segment, and formulating their feedback.There has been debate about the extent to which users are able to provide relevant feedback. The results of our studies showed that participants were able to provide useful feedback. They signalled many relevant problems that indeed were experienced by users who needed to find information on the website. Website quality can also be measured during participants’ task performance. A frequently used method is the concurrent think-aloud method (CTA), which involves participants who verbalize their thoughts while performing tasks. There have been doubts on the usefulness and exhaustiveness of participants’ verbalizations. Therefore, we have combined CTA and eye tracking in order to examine the cognitive processes that participants do and do not verbalize. The results showed that the participants’ verbalizations provided substantial information in addition to the directly observable user problems. There was also a rather high percentage of silences (27%) during which interesting observations could be made about the users’ processes and obstacles. A thorough evaluation should therefore combine verbalizations and (eye tracking) observations. In a retrospective think-aloud (RTA) evaluation participants verbalize their thoughts afterwards while watching a recording of their performance. A problem with RTA is that participants not always remember the thoughts they had during their task performance. We therefore complemented the dynamic screen replay of their actions (pages visited and mouse movements) with a dynamic gaze replay of the participants’ eye movements.Contrary to our expectations, no differences were found between the two conditions. It is not possible to draw conclusions on the single best method. The value of a specific method is strongly influenced by the goals and context of an evaluation. Also, the outcomes of the evaluation not only depend on the method, but also on other choices during the evaluation, such as participant selection, tasks, and the subsequent analysis.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

The dataset contains information, divided by month, on accesses made to the online services offered by the opendata portal and provided by the municipality of Milan. The pageviews column represents the total number of web pages that have been viewed within the time frame used. The visits column represents the total visits made, within the time frame used. The visitors column represents the total number of unique visitors who have accessed the web pages. By unique visitor, we mean a visitor counted only once within the time frame used.

A dataset for recommendations collected from ted.com which contains metadata fields for TED talks and user profiles with rating and commenting transactions.

The TED dataset contains all the audio-video recordings of the TED talks downloaded from the official TED website, http://www.ted.com, on April 27th 2012 (first version) and on September 10th 2012 (second version). No processing has been done on any of the metadata fields. The metadata was obtained by crawling the HTML source of the list of talks and users, as well as talk and user webpages using scripts written by Nikolaos Pappas at the Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland. The dataset is shared under the Creative Commons license (the same as the content of the TED talks) which is stored in the COPYRIGHT file. The dataset is shared for research purposes which are explained in detail in the following papers. The dataset can be used to benchmark systems that perform two tasks, namely personalized recommendations and generic recommendations. Please check the CBMI 2013 paper for a detailed description of each task.

Nikolaos Pappas, Andrei Popescu-Belis, "Combining Content with User Preferences for TED Lecture Recommendation", 11th International Workshop on Content Based Multimedia Indexing, Veszprém, Hungary, IEEE, 2013 PDF document, Bibtex citation

Nikolaos Pappas, Andrei Popescu-Belis, Sentiment Analysis of User Comments for One-Class Collaborative Filtering over TED Talks, 36th ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Dublin, Ireland, ACM, 2013 PDF document, Bibtex citation

If you use the TED dataset for your research please cite one of the above papers (specifically the 1st paper for the April 2012 version and the 2nd paper for the September 2012 version of the dataset).

TED website

The TED website is a popular online repository of audiovisual recordings of public lectures given by prominent speakers, under a Creative Commons non-commercial license (see www.ted.com). The site provides extended metadata and user-contributed material. The speakers are scientists, writers, journalists, artists, and businesspeople from all over the world who are generally given a maximum of 18 minutes to present their ideas. The talks are given in English and are usually transcribed and then translated into several other languages by volunteer users. The quality of the talks has made TED one of the most popular online lecture repositories, as each talk was viewed on average almost 500,000 times.

Metadata

The dataset contains two main entry types: talks and users. The talks have the following data fields: identifier, title, description, speaker name, TED event at which they were given, transcript, publication date, filming date, number of views. Each talk has a variable number of user comments, organized in threads. In addition, three fields were assigned by TED editorial staff: related tags, related themes, and related talks. Each talk generally has three related talks and 95% of them have a high- quality transcript available. The dataset includes 1,149 talks from 960 speakers and 69,023 registered users that have made about 100,000 favorites and 200,000 comments.

This dataset collection is a compilation of related data tables sourced from the website of Tilastokeskus (Statistics Finland) in Finland. The data tables in the collection provide a wealth of statistical information. The data, organized in a table format consisting of columns and rows, was originally provided via Tilastokeskuksen palvelurajapinta (Statistics Finland's service interface). Each table in the collection presents a unique set of related data, making this collection a versatile and valuable resource for various data analysis tasks. This dataset is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.fi).