User:ColdRainyDay45/sandbox

Final Draft: Click tracking

Click tracking is when user click behavior or user navigational behavior is collected in order to derive insights. Click tracking is closely related to the terms click analytics, click data, and click-through rate (CTR). Currently, click behavior is commonly tracked using server logs which encompass click paths and clicked URLs (Uniform Resource Locator). This log is often presented in a standard format including information like the hostname, date, and username. However, as technology develops, new software allows for in depth analysis of user click behavior using hypervideo tools. Given that the internet can be considered a risky environment, research strives to understand why users click certain links and not others. Research has also been conducted to explore the user experience of privacy with making user personal identification information individually anonymized and improving how data collection consent forms are written and structured.

Click tracking is relevant in several industries including Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), software engineering, and advertising. Email tracking, link tracking, web analytics, and user research are also related concepts and applications of click tracking. A common utilization of click data from click tracking is to improve results' positions from search engines to make their order more relevant to users' needs. Click tracking employs many modern techniques such as machine learning and data mining.

Tracking and recording technology

See Also: Search engine privacy

Tracking and recording technologies (TRTs) can be split into two categories, institutional TRTs and end-user TRTs. Institutional TRTs and end-user TRTs differ by who is collecting and storing the data, and this can be respectively understood as institutions and users. Examples of TRTs include radio frequency identification (RFID), credit cards, and store video cameras. Research suggests that individuals are concerned with privacy, but they are less concerned with how TRTs are used daily. This discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that the public often does not understand how information about them is getting collected. Individuals also do not have great expectations of privacy, and they believe that situations cannot be generalized.

Another means of obtaining user input is eye-tracking or gaze tracking. Gaze-tracking technology is especially beneficial for those with motor disabilities. Systems that employ gaze-tracking often try to mimic cursor and keyboard behavior. In this process, the gaze-tracking system is separated into its own panel in the system interface, and the user experience of this system is compromised as individuals have to switch between the panel and the other interface features. The experience is also difficult because users have to first imagine how to complete the task using keyboard and cursor features and then employ gaze. This causes tasks to take additional time. Hence, researchers created their own web browser called GazeTheWeb (GTW), and the focus of their research was on the user experience. They improved the interface to incorporate gaze better.

Eye-movement tracking is also applied in usability testing when creating web applications. However, in order to track user eye movements, a lab setting with appropriate equipment is often required. Mouse and keyboard activity can be measured remotely, so this quality can be capitalized for usability testing. Algorithms can use mouse movements to predict and trace user eye movements. Such tracking in a remote environment is denoted as a remote logging technique.

This is an example of recorded gaze-tracking for multiple participants.

Browser fingerprinting is another means of identifying users and tracking them. In this process, information about a user is collected from their web browser to create a browser fingerprint. A browser fingerprint contains information about a device, its operating system, its browser, and its configuration. HTTP headers, JavaScript, and browser plugins can be used to build a fingerprint. Browser fingerprints can change over time from automatic software updates or user browser preference adjustments. Measures to increase privacy in this realm can reduce functionality by blocking features.

Methods of click tracking

User browsing behavior is often tracked using server access logs which contain patterns of clicked URLs, queries, and paths. However, more modern tracking software utilizes JavaScript in order to track cursor behavior. The collected mouse data can be used to create videos, allowing for user behavior to be replayed and easily analyzed. Hypermedia is used to create such visualizations that allow for behavior like highlighting, hesitating, and selecting to be monitored. Technology that is used to record such behavior can also be used to predict it. One of these monitoring tools, SMT2є, collects fifteen cursor features and uses the other fourteen to predict the last feature’s outcome. This software also generates a log analysis which summarizes user cursor activity.

In a search session, users can be identified using cookies, identd protocol, or their IP address. This information can then be stored in a database, and every time a user visits a web page again, their click behavior will be appended to the database. DoubleClick Inc. is an example of a company that has such a database and partners with other companies to aid with their web mining. Cookies are added to HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), and when a user clicks on a link, they are connected to the associated web server. This action of a user clicking on a link is seen as a request, and the server “responds” by sending the user's information, and this information is a cookie. Cookies provide a “bookmark” for users’ sessions on a website, and they store user login information and the pages users visit on a website. This aids with preserving the state of the session. If there is more than one such server, information must be consistent among all servers; hence, information is transferred. Data collected via cookies can be used to improve websites for all users and this also aids with user profiling for advertising.

When data mining techniques and statistical procedures are applied to understand web log data, the process is noted as log analysis or web usage mining. This helps with determining patterns in the users’ navigational behaviors. Some features that can be observed include how long users viewed pages for, click path lengths, and the number of clicks. Web usage mining has three phases. First, the log data is "preprocessed" to see the users and search sessions’ content. Then, tools like association and clustering are applied to look for patterns, and lastly, these patterns are saved to be further analyzed. The tool of association rule mining helps with finding “patterns, associations, and correlations” among pages users visit in a search session. Sequential pattern discovery is association rule mining, but it also accounts for time like the page views in an allotted time period. Classification is a tool that allows for pages to be added to groups representing certain similar qualities.

Some examples of tools individuals can use when conducting click analytics are the Google Analytics tool In-Page Analytics, ClickHeat, and Crazy Egg. These tools create a visual from user click data on a webpage. ClickHeat and Crazy Egg showcase the density of user clicks using specific colors, and all of these tools allow for webpage visitors to be categorized into groups by qualities like being a mobile user or using a particular browser. The specific groups' data can be analyzed for further insight.

Why users click certain links

One of the main factors users consider when clicking links is a link’s position in a list of results. The closer links are to the top, the more likely they are to be selected by users. This is understood in the study conducted by Kessler et al., in which Google News, as a news aggregator website, is studied. Through using an open survey, closed survey, and screen recording data, Kessler examines what drives users to click certain items on Google News. Through analysis, it is understood that when users have a personal connection to a subject matter they tend to click that article more frequently. Pictures, position, and specific individuals in the news content also more heavily influenced users’ decisions. The source of the news was deemed as less important.

Click attitude and click intention play a large role in user click behavior. In a study conducted by Wu et al., when research participants were presented with positive and negative insurance advertisement photographs, emotion was seen to have a positive association with click intention and click attitude. The researchers also observed that click attitude affects click intention, and positive emotion has more of an impact than negative emotion on click attitude.

The internet can be considered a risky environment due to the abundance of cybersecurity attacks that can occur and the prevalence of malware. Hence, whenever individuals use the internet, they have to decide whether or not to click on the various links. Ogbanufe et al. investigates click-through in the realm of e-commerce by studying click-through intention, often denoted as INT, as a dependent variable affected by factors like personal information loss, trust, and familiarity. Research reveals that users tend to click-through more URLs on websites they are familiar with; this user trait is then exploited by cybercriminals, and personal information can be compromised. Hence, trust is seen to also increase INT. When given Google Chrome warnings, 70% of the time people will click-through. They also tend to adjust default computer settings in this process. Users also better recognize malware risks when there is a greater potential for revealing their personal information.

Relevance of search results

Pages that are viewed by users during a particular search session constitute click data. Such data can be used to improve search results in two ways, as explicit and implicit feedback. Explicit feedback is when users indicate which pages are relevant to their search query, while implicit feedback is when user behavior is interpreted to determine results’ relevance. Certain user actions on a webpage that can be used as a part of the interpretation process include bookmarking, saving, or printing a particular web page. Through collecting click data from a few individuals, the relevance of results for all users for given queries can improve. In a search session, a user indicates which documents they are more interested in with their clicks, and this indicates what is relevant to the search. The most relevant click data to determine relevance of results is often the last viewed web page rather than all of the pages clicked on in a search session. Click data outside of search sessions can also be used to improve the accuracy of relevant results for users.

The search results to a given query are usually subject to positional bias. This is because users tend to select links that are at the top of result lists. However, this position does not mean a result is the most relevant since relevance can change over time. As a part of a machine learning approach to improving the result order, human editors begin by supplying an original rank for each result to the algorithm. Then, live user click feedback in the form of tracked click-through rates (CTR) in search sessions can be used to rerank the results based on the data. This improves the order of the results based on the live indicated relevance from the users.

Click dwell time and click sequence information can also be used to improve the relevance of search results. Click dwell time is how long a user takes to return back to the search engine results page (SERP) after clicking on a particular result, and this can indicate how satisfied the user is with a particular result. Eye-tracking research indicates that users exhibit an abundance of non-sequential viewing activity when looking at search results. Click models that abide by “top-down” user click behavior cannot interpret the user process of revisiting pages.

Extensions

Advertising

Supply-demand mismatch costs can be reduced through click tracking. Huang et al. defines strategic customers as “forward looking” individuals who know that their clicks are being tracked and expect that companies will engage in appropriate business activities. In the conducted study, researchers used clickstream data from customers to observe their preferences and desired product quantities. Noisy clicks are when customers click but do not actually buy the product. This leads to imperfect advanced demand information or ADI.

Click tracking can be used in the realm of advertising, but there is the potential for this tool to be used negatively. Publishers display advertisements on their websites, and they receive money depending on the amount of traffic, measured as a number of clicks, they send to the advertisers website. Click fraud is when publishers fake clicks to generate revenue for themselves. In the 2012 Fraud Detection in Mobile Advertising (FDMA) conference, competition teams were tasked with having to use data mining and machine learning techniques to determine “fraudulent publishers” from a given dataset. A successful algorithm is able to observe and use morning and night click traffic patterns. When there is density of clicks between these main patterns, it is often an indicator of a fraudulent publisher.

Website content can be adjusted to make it specific to users using “user navigational behavior” and user interests in a process called web personalization. Web personalization is useful in the realm of e-commerce. There are unique steps in the process of web personalization, and the first step is noted as “user profiling.” In this step, the user is understood and constituted through their click behavior, preferences, and qualities. Following user profiling is “log analysis and web usage mining.”

Email

Phishing is usually administered through emails, and when a user clicks on a phishing attempt email, their information will be leaked to particular websites. Spear-phishing is a more “targeted” form of phishing in which user information is used to personalize emails and entice users to click. Some phishing emails will also contain other links and attachments. Once these are either clicked or downloaded, users’ privacy can be encroached. Lin et al. conducted a study to see which psychological “weapons of influence” and “life domains” affect users most in phishing attempts, and they found that scarcity was the most influential factor weapon of influence, and the legal domain was the most influential life domain. Age is also an important factor in determining those who are more susceptible to clicking on phishing attempts.

When a virus infects a computer, it finds email addresses and sends copies of itself through these emails. These emails will usually contain an attachment and will be sent to several individuals. This differs from user email account behavior because users tend to have a particular network they communicate with regularly. Researchers studied how the Email Mining Toolkit (EMT) could be used to detect viruses by studying such user email account behavior and found that it was easier to decipher quick, broad viral propagations in comparison to slow, gradual viral propagations.

In order to know what emails users have opened, email senders engage in email tracking. By merely opening an email, users' email addresses can be leaked to third parties, and if users click on links within the emails, their email address can get leaked to a larger number of third parties. Also, each time a user opens an email sent to them, their information can get sent to a new third party among those that their address has already been leaked to. Many third party email trackers are also involved in web tracking, leading to further user profiling.

Privacy

See Also: Information privacy

Privacy-protection models anonymize data after it is sent to a server and stored in a database. Hence, user personal identification information is still collected, and this collection process is based off of users trusting such servers. Researchers study giving users control over what information is sent from their mobile devices. They also observe giving users control over how that information is represented in databases in the realm of trajectory data, and they create a system that allows for this approach. This approach gives users the potential to increase their privacy.

When user privacy is going to be encroached, consent forms are often distributed. The type of user activity required in these forms can have an effect on how much information a user retains from the form. Karegar et al. compares the simple agree/disagree format with forms that incorporate checkboxes, drag and drop (DAD), and swipe features. When testing what information users would agree to disclose with each of the consent form formats, researchers observed that users presented with DAD forms had a greater number of eye-fixations and on the given consent form.

When a third-party is associated with a first-party website or mobile application, anytime a user visits the first party website or mobile application, their information will be sent to the third-party. Third-party tracking generates more privacy concerns than first-party tracking because it allows for many website or application records about a particular user to be combined, yielding better user profiles. Binns et al. found that among 5000 popular websites, the top two websites alone had 2000 trackers. Of the 2000 embedded trackers, 253 were used in 25 other websites. Researchers evaluated the reach of third-party trackers based on the their contact with users rather than websites, so more "popular" trackers were those who received information about the most number of people rather than code embedded in the most first-parties. Google and Facebook were deemed as the first and second largest web trackers, and Google and Twitter were deemed as the first and second largest mobile trackers.

See also

• Click path
• Click analytics
• Web analytics
• Phishing
• Web log analysis software
• Web mining
• Search session

Peer review #4 - ColdRainyDay45 x Cheersmate510

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ColdRainyDay45/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Delete space between two consecutive sources. It should be formatted as [1][2] not [1] [2]
  • "Why users click certain links" Delete "certain" or replace with a more specific word like "suspicious" etc.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
• Are images well-captioned? n/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Article is easy to read and through. I like the addition of the see also hyperlink under headings. Thank you for all the feedback these past few weeks. I look forward to seeing yours fully posted.
• How can the content added be improved? For the "See also" for privacy and for tracking and recording technology lowercase the second word. Also lowercase "also" for the See also at the bottom.

Peer Review #4 of "Click tracking": ColdRainyDay45 x Midnightinterludes

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Click tracking

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. For sentences where you cite two sources, make sure your format is consistent! (e.g. if there is a space between the two citations or not, just something small I noticed)

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all in 2000s.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, love the addition of new content (e.g. you added more to the privacy section! it was great! I also love the new enhancements section heading! really good, you flushed it out well)

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Great job!

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Not all- make sure every new idea has a citation. some examples:
    • The tool of association rule mining helps with finding “patterns, associations, and correlations” among pages users visit in a search session. needs a citation esp with quote -Ogbanufe et al. investigates click-through in the realm of e-commerce by studying click-through intention, often denoted as INT, as a dependent variable affected by factors like personal information loss, trust, and familiarity. Research reveals that users tend to click-through more URLs on websites they are familiar with; this user trait is then exploited by cybercriminals, and personal information can be compromised. Hence, trust is seen to also increase INT. When given Google Chrome warnings, 70% of the time people will click-through. -> needs citation at least somewhere in this chunk
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Good job hitting 20 sources! I loved the new content. If you want to have more sources, just look up some current news or go back through sources you originally omitted because they weren’t at least 15 pages and you can still add info to your article (if you’d like but I think your article is well flushed out!)
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, explanations are clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could find, good job!
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Good job reorganizing and readjusting the sections!

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A but I think you could add in some images/video (if available) on click tracking! would add to your article!

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Good.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I love the edits
• What are the strengths of the content added? Thorough information, I liked the rewording to “extensions” and the addition of more content/sources especially on third parties and privacy and the see also section
• How can the content added be improved? Great job improving from last week, I enjoyed seeing your article evolve over the weeks and can’t wait to see it on the main space (: I think adding an image or two could help and just adding a little more citations to spaces where there are no citations for a couple lines would help! Also something small: for “See Also” switch to “See also” because Wikipedia only likes first word to be capitalized. Great job, I loved reading your article. And also, since this is the last week of peer reviews, thank you for peer reviewing my article over the past weeks! I really appreciate the help.

Peer review #3 - ColdRainyDay45 x Cheersmate510

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ColdRainyDay45/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes!
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes!
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise! It is a great length now

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all within last 20 years
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, edits have been made to include user click behavior in the lead!

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes, all within last 20 years
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
• Are images well-captioned? n/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!
• What are the strengths of the content added? All information used by a certain source has the same number. I will try to implement that in mine.
• How can the content added be improved? I think it is great overall. If any of the sections have their own article you can write under the heading Main Article: ___ with a hyperlink to it! Or maybe add a see also section at the bottom.

Peer Review #3 of "Click tracking": ColdRainyDay45 x Midnightinterludes

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Click tracking

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is a definition.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes! Appropriate edits have been made from last week's draft
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all in 2000s.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No the content is very thorough, but potential suggestions to help expand the article:
    • under why users click certain links " Research reveals that users tend to click-through more URLs on websites they are familiar with; this user trait is then exploited by cybercriminals.” could add in some recent examples to enhance
    • under applications, "Click fraud is when publishers fake clicks to generate revenue for themselves.” could be neat to add in incidents of this
    • also you added in information about cookies which is great! I think the article could benefit if you talked about cookies and privacy concerns with this in the privacy section

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Not all- make sure every new idea has a citation. some examples:
    • A common utilization of click data from click tracking is to improve results from search engines to make them more relevant to users' needs.-> needs a citation
    • A browser fingerprint contains information about a device, its operating system, its browser, and its configuration. HTTP headers, JavaScript, and browser plugins can be used to build a fingerprint. Browser fingerprints can change over time from automatic software updates or user browser preference adjustments. Measures to increase privacy in this realm can reduce functionality by blocking features.-> needs a citation
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but at 19 sources, just one more to hit the magic 20 we need from our annotated bibliography
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, explanations are clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could find, good job!
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Could think about adding sub-sections if wanted to. I think applications and privacy sections could be one in the other, phishing and viruses can deal with privacy so could think about combining or adding a subsection

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not too exhaustive. Should try to add more sources if possible.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I love the new additions (e.g. cookies)
• What are the strengths of the content added? Thorough information, I thought the click dwelling time was interesting! Appropriate hyperlinks
• How can the content added be improved? I think you reorganize a little so the privacy section isn't underrepresented- you talk about topics that relate to privacy and can add that into the privacy section. also i think it would be cool to check out search engine privacy to add to the privacy section! overall great job though!

Overall evaluation: 4.5/5

Being bold is important on Wikipedia.

Virtual Lab Discussion: What's a Content Gap?

• Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
  • I think that a content gap is when an article lacks necessary information in order to accurately and thoroughly explain certain subject matter. Some possible ways to identify such content gaps are through reading various reliable sources and making a list of important topics in each of them. Through finding commonalities, emphasized topics can be determined, and these topics/ideas should be included in Wikipedia articles. If any of the topics are missing, they should be added. Through reading an article on Wikipedia, one can find content gaps by looking for loopholes and sections where one has many questions after reading.
• What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
  • A content gap might arise through not editing an article thoroughly to find problem areas. A content gap can also arise through referencing a limited amount of sources or reading only one particular type of source. Some ways to remedy content gaps are to have a peer look over your article. Having someone else look over work can help you realize where you should add more information and clarify what you have done so far.  It also helps to go over the sources you have used to write your article to ensure there is variety and an abundance of information.
• Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
  • It does not matter who writes articles for Wikipedia as long as they follow the regulations set in place. It is important that those who do write for Wikipedia maintain a neutral perspective, use reliable sources, share their own work, use citations, and abide by the pillar of respect for other fellow Wikipedians. Wikipedians collaborate to edit and improve the quality of a plethora of articles, so those who do write for Wikipedia will often have to make adjustments to their articles.
• What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
  • What it means to be “unbiased” on Wikipedia is to write from a neutral point of view. Articles should not contain any opinions or heavily emphasize certain aspects of topics if they are not as important and relevant. This is similar to my own definition of bias, not showcasing partiality, because articles should not reveal the author’s preferences in any way or try to persuade the readers. Readers should merely be informed about the topic and have enough information to formulate their own perspective.

Article Evaluation 1: Information Privacy

• Name of article: Information Privacy
• I have chosen to evaluate this article in order to learn more about the subject matter, understand the format of Wikipedia articles, and learn how to evaluate article quality. This article was linked as an exercise in my dashboard to practice article evaluation.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise and introduces the article topic well. There are also several links to other related Wikipedia articles and citations present in the Lead. The Lead briefly mentions the main sections of the article, but the Lead does not explicitly mention the exact names of those sections. Since the article subject matter is interdisciplinary, the Lead mentions related fields and links Wikipedia articles. These subjects are encompassed in the article, but they are not comprehensively covered. For example, data security is a vast subject and has its own Wikipedia article. Hence, aspects of this matter are covered, mentioned, and integrated into the work, but there is no explicit section dedicated to the topic. The Lead does not contain unnecessary detail.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

In the first section of the article, “Authorities,” there are two subsections, each with several links to various Wikipedia articles regarding privacy acts pertaining to many countries in Europe, Asia, and North America. Most of these links refer to acts from the 2000s, some are even from 2019. There are some articles that refer to older acts from the 1980s, but they are important to the subject matter and can potentially aid a reader with understanding historical changes and progress. The “Information Types” section is extremely relevant to the topic. The subtopics in this section such as “Educational” and “Internet” briefly introduce how personal information can be collected, protected, and potentially exploited. The section showcases versatility and is up-to-date with technological advances. The “Protection of privacy in information systems” section has three relevant categories that reference means of protecting privacy. No content appears to be underdeveloped  or irrelevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

This article does not persuade the reader to take any stance on the subject matter. The article is neutral and does not make explicitly biased claims. The “Internet” section under the “Information Types” section has the most content, but this subject matter is prevalent in the modern age.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

After clicking on some of the links from the references section, I noticed that a few of the sources led to pages with the message “Page not Found,” and source five is an example of this. A couple of the sources for this article are news websites (USA today, NY Times), while others are academic papers/studies. One of the older sources I found was from 2000, and one of the newer sources I found was from 2017. The sources represent a wide range of topics, showcasing the interdisciplinary nature of the subject matter.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

There were not many obvious grammatical errors or spelling errors. The topic was clarified into logical subcategories, and there were more subtopics in a few of the subsections as well. I found the last section the most difficult to comprehend because it was rather long and not broken down into smaller sections/paragraphs.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

There are no images in this article.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

This article is a “C-Class” article on the project quality scale and has been rated as a “High Importance” article. There were some conversations about adding more information about India and China. One of the longest discussions was about changing the article name to “Informational Privacy.” This position was supported with sources, grammar rules, and a Google search comparison. Others suggested merging the article with “Digital Privacy.” There were also comments about word choices not suggesting neutrality and unavailable sources.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

This article is not a featured article. The article’s strengths are that it is well-developed, and there are many subsections. It provides an overview of the subject matter and links several Wikipedia articles allowing readers to further understand other related topics. Also, through maintaining a neutral tone, the article allows readers to form their own opinions of the subject. The article can be improved by making adjustments to the last section, “US Safe Harbor Program and passenger name record issues.” This section can be made easier to follow by adding more paragraphs and subcategories to break down the vast amount of information.

Article Evaluation 2: Data Breach

• Name of article: Data Breach
• I have chosen to evaluate this article in order to learn more about the subject matter, understand the format of Wikipedia articles, and learn how to evaluate article quality. This article was linked as an exercise in my dashboard to practice article evaluation.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead for the “Data breach” article includes a concise definition that is easy to understand, and other names/phrases that are related to and refer to data breaches are also included. The lead also includes types of information that can be exposed and how this changes the type of breach. There are quotes in the introduction that better introduce the subject matter, but this can also be seen as redundant since a definition is already provided by the article author. Statistics in the lead showcase the severity and importance of studying data breaches.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The idea of a data breach is further elaborated on in a section dedicated solely to the definition of a data breach. The major incidents section is organized by year, and the frequency of events as well as a short summary of each is broken into bullet points, making it easy for the reader to understand. This information is quite up to date as it includes events from 2019 as well. There is an entire section for medical data breaches, but no other specific types of breaches are included. It might be useful to add such information to showcase topic breath and variety.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

This article is written from a neural perspective, and biased claims are not explicitly included. The medical data breach section is over represented because it is the only section dedicated to a particular data breach. There is no persuasive material in the article, but some of the included quotes, such as the quote from the Cisco CEO, can be interpreted as somewhat conveying a perspective/taking a stance.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Throughout the article there are many citations, and many of the sources are online news publications. These sources appear to be current, with most being published in 2010 and later. Most of the links work, but some do lead to pages displaying the message “Page not found,” such as source 4. Some of the sources are not as detailed and thorough and have a very limited amount of material. There are also not as many academic papers, studies, and journals cited.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

This article is organized and well-written. The content is split into sections, and each is unique and contributes to the overall subject matter. The information written in a concise and clear manner, and there are many links to other articles for events/examples/topics scattered throughout the article. Medical data breach should not be the only specific breach type represented, so other specific breaches should also have their own sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

There is one image, with a caption, in the "Consequences" section of the article. The image shows an increasing trend in the cost in of data breaches in Germany over three years. The image is easy to understand, but it does not help enhance one’s understanding of the subject matter because economic trends in Germany are not discussed in this section of the article. The link that is included in the citation for the image has been moved, so this should be updated.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

This article is rated as “C-Class” and has been assigned a “mid-importance” level. The article is part of the Computing  and Computer Security Wikiproject. The talk page includes conversations about changing the word “spill” and modifying links. One of the data breach sections was moved, and someone noted that having the breaches listed was redundant as there is another article dedicated to this. This statement was countered by only including the major breaches rather than all of them.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

This article is not a featured article, but it is well-developed and split into logical sections. The article maintains a neutral tone and provides a good overview of the subject matter. There are many sources listed as references, and many of these sources are current. An adjustment that can be made to improve the overall quality of the article is to include sections for specific data breaches besides merely medical breaches. This can be interpreted as biased.

Virtual Lab Discussion: Thinking About Sources and Plagiarism

• Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
  • Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information because they are biased and can lack factual information. Blog posts can be written by almost anyone and will contain the author’s opinion; hence, one cannot truly learn about the subject matter in an objective manner. Press releases also tend to be biased and are often not based on information from reliable sources. Information used to create such sources is parsed in multiple ways in order to formulate the press release. These articles often omit details, other perspectives, and have the motivation to attract audience attention.
• What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
  • Some reasons you might not want to use a company’s website as the main source of information about that company are that the information is likely biased and incomprehensive. A company’s website will promote their service/product; hence, all aspects of the product will not be showcased on the website, especially critique. Since companies strive to promote their work, they will likely not highlight other companies in a positive light on their pages. This can limit the amount of information used to develop an article on the subject matter. Other sources may include both positive and negative facets of the company as well as similar companies.
• What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
  • Copyright violation is when information that is not in the “public domain” is used. Sources that can be used must be cited with the free license as a link. Copyright violation is especially pertinent to images and long quotes. Plagiarism can be observed in three ways- unattributed plagiarism, cited plagiarism, and close paraphrasing. Unattributed plagiarism is when information is directly copied from another source without giving any credit to the original source. Cited plagiarism is when the source where the original information is drawn from is inserted as a footnote. Close paraphrasing is keeping the same meaning and structure of sentences from the original source in your article.
• What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
  • To avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism, it is important to read and draw material information from a plethora of sources. You should read each source carefully in order to understand the material and take notes during the process. Your notes from all of the various sources should then be used to compose your article. This will yield work in your own words as your article will come from your notes and understanding.

Why I am Creating this Article

The subject matter of Click Tracking is extremely relevant and encompasses the realms of machine learning, user research, and data privacy. Many times we use the internet freely without considering what information about our actions is getting collected and what that information is used for. Click tracking is common and used by many websites as a form of analytics to improve their practices, but this does not come without a cost. For these reasons, I believe that Click Tracking is a topic more people should learn about, and I hope that through creating this page, more people will be able to understand this prevalent topic.

Lead and Outline for Click tracking article

Click tracking is when user click behavior is collected in order to derive insights. Click tracking is closely related to the terms click analytics, click data, and click-through rate (CTR). Currently, click behavior is tracked using server logs which encompass click paths and clicked URLs. Click tracking is relevant in several industries including Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), software engineering, and product design. Email tracking, link tracking, web analytics, and user research are all related concepts and applications of click tracking. Click data from click tracking is used as a means of improving results from search engines, and click tracking employs many modern techniques such as machine learning.

Outline

1. Lead
2. Tracking and Recording Technology
3. How User Clicks are Tracked
4. Why Users Click certain links
   1. Selection Factors
   2. Emotion
5. Relevance of Results
6. Privacy Concerns
7. Applications/Related Concepts
   1. Email Tracking
   2. Link Tracking
   3. Web Analytics
   4. User Research

Virtual Lab Discussion: Thinking About Wikipedia

• What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
  • Wikipedia’s definition of “neutrality” is important and relevant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Hence, through reading Wikipedia articles, individuals should be educated about the specific subject matter rather than persuaded to abide by a particular viewpoint. By presenting multiple perspectives, and avoiding bias, users are able to form their own opinions about the subject matter. Moreover, by introducing several aspects of a topic, readers can find specific information they are more interested in to research further.

• What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
  • The impacts of Wikipedia are that it is free, and this means that everyone with access to the internet can read a plethora of articles. Wikipedians strive to fact-check information in articles, verify sources, and ensure that edits are valid. This allows for the articles to be more trustworthy, and many individuals also use scholarly sources. Wikipedia introduces readers to a subject, and they can use this information to further delve into their particular interest by reading the sources or conducting their own research. The limits of Wikipedia as a source of information are that it can be edited by anyone, meaning that it is possible for there to be unreliable information and uncited material in articles. This can hinder trust in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, so if someone intends to understand others’ perspectives that cannot be done through Wikipedia.

• On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
  • Since all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources, this excludes blogs and press releases as sources of information. This can create problems when writing articles about recent events or new technologies. This is because there will be a limited amount of reliable sources/studies to draw information from, and this can make the resulting article quite short.

• If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
  • If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, its content would not include technological innovations such as smartphones, computers, or social media. Also, it would likely include more information about trends at the time in terms of style, food, and culture. Historical events might be included as well as scientific discoveries from that time period. The content might also be more general; for example, information about whales rather than the specific species. The contributors would likely be wealthy men and those with access to information. Wikipedia 100 years from now will include more articles about specific events, people, and discoveries. There will be more articles about innovation and technology. In the future, as access to technology is more prevalent, more individuals from diverse backgrounds and age groups will be able to contribute to articles.  

Peer Reviews

Peer Review of "Click tracking": ColdRainyDay45 x Midnightinterludes

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Click tracking

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is a definition.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Kind of, can make more apparent connections in the lead to the sections you have in the article
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Product design is included but not discussed too much in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all in 2000s.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Could improve with content regarding privacy concerns, incognito browser differences (if any), and maybe on sponsored links (the links that appear first on a search page because companies have paid Google to have it listed first).

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, most of the content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not heavily, but I would add more about click tracking cons because the article mainly talks about improvements and benefits
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented on the cons side
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not really.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but should incorporate more sources if possible (from annotated bibliography)
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, explanations are clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few but added edits to it.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think the sections break down the topic quite nicely.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not too exhaustive. Should try to add more sources if possible.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? No.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? N/A but I think the content so far is good.
• What are the strengths of the content added? I think the content is well laid out and the article organization is great. There are appropriate citations and hyperlinks throughout the article.
• How can the content added be improved? I think information regarding incognito browsers, privacy policies and concerns could be added to help improve the article.

Peer Review of "Click tracking": ColdRainyDay45 x Cheersmate510

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ColdRainyDay45/sandbox#First Draft: Click tracking

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, user mentions alternative names, click paths, product design, and related industries.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. I think it should be a good length once the user includes descriptions of the other sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all within last 20 years
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Need to mention alternative names, click paths, product design, and related industries. Write more about privacy concerns. Is there any research on how aware people are of this occuring?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? yes, it is mostly neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I would write about cons (privacy concerns). Right now the search engine improving as a result of click tracking makes it lean towards the positive side.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? underrepresented on the cons side.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the author does not seem to be persuading users one way or the other. However, it seems that the whole picture is not in the article yet.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? For the most part. Author currently has 7 unique sources, but one they add more it will be fine.
• Are the sources current? Yes, all within last 20 years
• Check a few links. Do they work? No. There are no website links, but when I copy and paste into google I get the desired results

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Seemed good to me. A previous editor stated that she went through and made some corrections
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
• Are images well-captioned? n/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? n/a
• What are the strengths of the content added? Author breaks down complex subject to something very understandable.
• How can the content added be improved? By adding more perspectives

Peer review #2 - ColdRainyDay45 x Cheersmate510

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ColdRainyDay45/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, like Midnightinterlude stated, you need to include privacy.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes!
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but I would go more in depth. The lead seems short. Instead of just saying something is relevant, maybe explain how it is – you could say "a possible implication of blah blah is blah "
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, please include email tracking
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but could do with more detail!

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all within last 20 years
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? maybe include in your lead something about user click behavior.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes, all within last 20 years
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, but it is easier to read when there is variety in sentence length. You can chop some sentences in half.
  • This discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that the public often does not understand how information about them is getting collected.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
• Are images well-captioned? n/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes. Your sections are all great lengths.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!
• What are the strengths of the content added? Author does a good job of providing facts and hyperlinking. I like that you do a separate how and why section!
• How can the content added be improved? I want more in-depth explanations. Yes, there are hyperlinks but maybe explain some of those terms - which you've already indicated in some parts that you are planning to do for click through rates.

Peer Review #2 of "Click tracking": ColdRainyDay45 x Midnightinterludes

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? ColdRainyDay45
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Click tracking

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, add in privacy to your lead
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is a definition.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Kind of, can go more in depth with the main concepts in the article instead of saying that the article includes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, email tracking is mentioned but not discussed in the article, can refine the applications a little in the lead
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all in 2000s.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Yes.
    • under why users click certain links " Research reveals that users tend to click-through more URLs on websites they are familiar with; this user trait is then exploited by cybercriminals.” could add in some recent examples to enhance
    • under applications, "Click fraud is when publishers fake clicks to generate revenue for themselves.” could be neat to add in incidents of this

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Not all- make sure every new idea has a citation. some examples:
    • under tracking and recording technology "Gaze-tracking technology is especially beneficial for those with motor disabilities.” needs a citation
    • under how users clicks are tracked "Some features that can be observed include how long users viewed pages for, click path lengths, and the number of clicks.” needs a citation
    • under how users clicks are tracked "The tool of association rule mining helps with finding “patterns, associations, and correlations” among pages users visit in a search session.” needs citation especially because has quotes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but should incorporate more sources if possible (from annotated bibliography)
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, explanations are clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • under Privacy, "Researchers study giving users control over what information is sent from their mobile devices and how that information is represented in databases in the realm of trajectory data, and they create a system that allows for this approach.” break sentence up for better flow
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think the sections break down the topic quite nicely. Could think about adding sub-sections if wanted to.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not too exhaustive. Should try to add more sources if possible.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I love the addition of the privacy section.
• What are the strengths of the content added? I think the content is explanatory and there are appropriate hyperlinks throughout.
• How can the content added be improved? Perhaps fleshing out the information in each section with more sources