使用EDGAR日志文件数据集

James P. Ryans
{"title":"使用EDGAR日志文件数据集","authors":"James P. Ryans","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2913612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The SEC's EDGAR log file data set is a collection of web server log files that allow researchers to study the demand for SEC filings. This multiple terabyte data set provides researchers with a direct measure of demand for financial reports, but the log files must be filtered to remove downloads by computer programs (or robots), and the sheer size of the files presents big data challenges. This paper compares three methods for counting human views in the EDGAR log files and aggregates the data on a filing-day basis so that it is accessible to desktop hardware and statistical analysis software. Overall, the three methods agree on the robot-human classification for 96 percent of users, but for sample 10-K filings, they can disagree by up to 27 percent. Download counts may be biased by up to 36 percent if multiple views by the same user are counted. Ryans's 2017 method eliminates multiple download counting and appears to effectively classify robots in cases of disagreement among the measures. The choice of measure may be particularly important when studying demand for Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 4, 13F-HR, as well as SEC comment letters. The aggregated data and sample code are available from the author.","PeriodicalId":202880,"journal":{"name":"Research Methods & Methodology in Accounting eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"57","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using the EDGAR Log File Data Set\",\"authors\":\"James P. Ryans\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2913612\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The SEC's EDGAR log file data set is a collection of web server log files that allow researchers to study the demand for SEC filings. This multiple terabyte data set provides researchers with a direct measure of demand for financial reports, but the log files must be filtered to remove downloads by computer programs (or robots), and the sheer size of the files presents big data challenges. This paper compares three methods for counting human views in the EDGAR log files and aggregates the data on a filing-day basis so that it is accessible to desktop hardware and statistical analysis software. Overall, the three methods agree on the robot-human classification for 96 percent of users, but for sample 10-K filings, they can disagree by up to 27 percent. Download counts may be biased by up to 36 percent if multiple views by the same user are counted. Ryans's 2017 method eliminates multiple download counting and appears to effectively classify robots in cases of disagreement among the measures. The choice of measure may be particularly important when studying demand for Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 4, 13F-HR, as well as SEC comment letters. The aggregated data and sample code are available from the author.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Methods & Methodology in Accounting eJournal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"57\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Methods & Methodology in Accounting eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2913612\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methods & Methodology in Accounting eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2913612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57

摘要

SEC的EDGAR日志文件数据集是web服务器日志文件的集合,允许研究人员研究SEC文件的需求。这个数tb的数据集为研究人员提供了对财务报告需求的直接衡量标准,但日志文件必须经过过滤,以消除计算机程序(或机器人)的下载,而且文件的绝对大小带来了大数据挑战。本文比较了EDGAR日志文件中人类观点计数的三种方法,并以归档日为基础汇总数据,以便桌面硬件和统计分析软件可以访问这些数据。总的来说,这三种方法对96%的用户的机器人-人类分类是一致的,但对于样本10-K文件,它们的分歧可能高达27%。如果计算同一用户的多次观看次数,那么下载计数可能会有多达36%的偏差。瑞安2017年的方法消除了多次下载计数,并且在不同测量方法之间存在分歧的情况下,似乎可以有效地对机器人进行分类。在研究对表格10-K、10-Q、4、13F-HR以及SEC评论信的需求时,测量方法的选择可能特别重要。聚合数据和示例代码可从作者处获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using the EDGAR Log File Data Set
The SEC's EDGAR log file data set is a collection of web server log files that allow researchers to study the demand for SEC filings. This multiple terabyte data set provides researchers with a direct measure of demand for financial reports, but the log files must be filtered to remove downloads by computer programs (or robots), and the sheer size of the files presents big data challenges. This paper compares three methods for counting human views in the EDGAR log files and aggregates the data on a filing-day basis so that it is accessible to desktop hardware and statistical analysis software. Overall, the three methods agree on the robot-human classification for 96 percent of users, but for sample 10-K filings, they can disagree by up to 27 percent. Download counts may be biased by up to 36 percent if multiple views by the same user are counted. Ryans's 2017 method eliminates multiple download counting and appears to effectively classify robots in cases of disagreement among the measures. The choice of measure may be particularly important when studying demand for Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 4, 13F-HR, as well as SEC comment letters. The aggregated data and sample code are available from the author.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信