Reproducibility and Replicability of Web Measurement Studies
Nurullah Demir, Matteo Große-Kampmann, Tobias Urban, Christian Wressnegger, Thorsten Holz, Norbert Pohlmann
Abstract
Web measurement studies can shed light on not yet fully understood phenomena and thus are essential for analyzing how the modern Web works. This often requires building new and adjusting existing crawling setups, which has led to a wide variety of analysis tools for different (but related) aspects. If these efforts are not sufficiently documented, the reproducibility and replicability of the measurements may suffer—two properties that are crucial to sustainable research. In this paper, we survey 117 recent research papers to derive best practices for Web-based measurement studies and specify criteria that need to be met in practice. When applying these criteria to the surveyed papers, we find that the experimental setup and other aspects essential to reproducing and replicating results are often missing. We underline the criticality of this finding by performing a large-scale Web measurement study on 4.5 million pages with 24 different measurement setups to demonstrate the influence of the individual criteria. Our experiments show that slight differences in the experimental setup directly affect the overall results and must be documented accurately and carefully.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers16
- SoK: Prudent Evaluation Practices for FuzzingMoritz Schloegel, Nils Bars, Nico Schiller, Lukas Bernhard et al.S&P 2024 · 69 citations
- SoK: State of the Krawlers - Evaluating the Effectiveness of Crawling Algorithms for Web Security MeasurementsAleksei Stafeev, Giancarlo PellegrinoUSENIX Security 2024 · 12 citations
- Automating Website Registration for Studying GDPR ComplianceKarel Kubicek, Jakob Merane, Ahmed Bouhoula, David A. BasinWWW 2024 · 9 citations
- The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Integrity of Modern JavaScriptJohnny So, Michael Ferdman, Nick NikiforakisWWW 2023 · 7 citations
- To Auth or Not To Auth? A Comparative Analysis of the Pre- and Post-Login Security LandscapeJannis Rautenstrauch, Metodi Mitkov, Thomas Helbrecht, Lorenz Hetterich et al.S&P 2024 · 6 citations
Builds on15
- Tranco: A Research-Oriented Top Sites Ranking Hardened Against ManipulationVictor Le Pochat, Tom van Goethem, Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob, Maciej Korczynski et al.NDSS 2019 · 826 citations
- Online Tracking: A 1-million-site Measurement and AnalysisSteven Englehardt, Arvind NarayananCCS 2016 · 798 citations
- Evaluating Fuzz TestingGeorge Klees, Andrew Ruef, Benji Cooper, Shiyi Wei et al.CCS 2018 · 753 citations
- Website Fingerprinting at Internet ScaleAndriy Panchenko, Fabian Lanze, Jan Pennekamp, Thomas Engel et al.NDSS 2016 · 625 citations
- Do Cookie Banners Respect my Choice? : Measuring Legal Compliance of Banners from IAB Europe's Transparency and Consent FrameworkCélestin Matte, Nataliia Bielova, Cristiana Teixeira SantosS&P 2020 · 212 citations
Related papers
- Apophanies or Epiphanies? How Crawlers Impact Our Understanding of the WebSyed Suleman Ahmad, Muhammad Daniyal Dar, Muhammad Fareed Zaffar, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez et al.WWW 2020 · 42 citations
- Web Execution Bundles: Reproducible, Accurate, and Archivable Web MeasurementsFlorian Hantke, Peter Snyder, Hamed Haddadi, Ben StockUSENIX Security 2025
- You Call This Archaeology? Evaluating Web Archives for Reproducible Web Security MeasurementsFlorian Hantke, Stefano Calzavara, Moritz Wilhelm, Alvise Rabitti et al.CCS 2023 · 4 citations
- The Representativeness of Automated Web Crawls as a Surrogate for Human BrowsingDavid Zeber, Sarah Bird, Camila Oliveira, Walter Rudametkin et al.WWW 2020 · 37 citations
- Towards Realistic and ReproducibleWeb Crawl MeasurementsJordan Jueckstock, Shaown Sarker, Peter Snyder, Aidan Beggs et al.WWW 2021 · 52 citations
