Hmm. Maybe a note in the documentation as well as a hover-over question mark icon to display some help text like we do with the derivatives?

Could we be specific about what is the case (we capture every domain and create an edge for every link we find in the web page)? That is a limitation of the network graphs, since I think people imagine the archives to contain everything in Way Back. (That would be really nice, of course!)

Just that what is being visualized is the domains that are captured as well as the domains that they link to (which may or may not be in the actual web archived collection).

What about something like this?

That works for me!

@ianmilligan1 I like that!

@edsu does that work?

Thanks for hearing this part of the presentation, and dropping it in here. You guys are awesome. I like the explanation.

I guess I was imagining (at least) two different types of users of this view.

• Archivists might like to see what was linked to but not crawled, because it could help them building their collections.
• Researchers who are trying to understand the content might not care too much about what was archived, and are more interested in seeing the relationships regardless of whether they were crawled. Although I guess seeing what was not crawled could help inform other visualizations, like text analysis, etc.

Maybe it would need to be two views? It would be nice if the underlying derivative Gephi file had a property indicating whether it was crawled or not. Then it could be easy for people to examine...

Adding a "crawled" or "domain"=1 attribute to the gexf would not be too expensive or difficult. Might be worth considering something in the sigmaJS to indicate a crawl as well (change the text size and/or colour? or the node shape?).