MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403196930 · doi:10.32782/bses.88-16

USING OF WEB ANALYTICS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT

2024· article· en· W4403196930 on OpenAlex
Oleksandr But

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlack Sea Economic Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Computational Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsWeb siteWeb analyticsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData scienceWeb developmentThe InternetWeb intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the concept and subject of web analytics, its main goals and tasks, such as data gathering, data analysis, calculation of KPI, forming of online strategies, describes the main metrics used by specialists when analyzing a website – Bounce Rate, Hit, Visitor/Session, Activity Time, Click, First Visit/Session. After careful consideration the most effective web analytics tool was chosen – Google Analytics. It’s working principles were described and his advantages and disadvantages were analyzed. Working with UTM was described in case with Google Analytics and in common. A website was also selected for analysis using Google Analytics – Google Merch Shop, which is powered by Google and contains different types of Google merchandise. Google Analytics was used to gather different statistics regarding users and visitors activity on the web site. After this, such metrics as Visitors number, visitors’ geographical data and visitor’s conversion number were calculated. Based on the data obtained, weak points of the website were found, due to which the flow of users from some countries was too low, and the percentage of users who made a purchase was significantly lower than the percentage of users who viewed the product. These weak points are limited localization of the site, unclear shipping methods for customers that are outside of USA or Canada, outdated UI/UX design of items page and lack of description with photos on this page. As a result, four recommendations for the further development of the website were formed based on the research data and weak points of the site. It was recommended to add more localizations for people all over the world, increase number of photos, which could make potential customers more interested in making a purchase, and add a detailed description with characteristics of every item, available on the site

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it