# Multi-Purpose Dataset of Webpages and Its Content Blocks: Design and Structure Validation
## 4 Research on the Proposed Dataset Structure Suitability and Its Data Peculiarities
### Labeling Experiment Results Analysis
proving that there is a lot of room for interpretation when labeling blocks. Based on these results, the option to store block variations in the dataset proved to be essential. In total, survey respondents added 905 labeled blocks. Out of this number, 383 blocks were unique, which means that respondents marked the same area but attached various labels. Out of 383 unique blocks, 192 of them had only one label attached. This amounts to about 50% of unique blocks. These labels can be treated as well recognizable and unambiguous. Another half of the unique labeled blocks had at least two labels present, about 18% had three or more different labels, ~9% had four or more labels, ~3% had five or more labels, and <1% had six different labels assigned. As six different persons were labeling the same websites, three or more additional labels for the same content block illustrate that 18% of blocks were not clearly presented or had an ambiguous purpose and title. Collected variations were further analyzed to determine whether those variations were synonymous or not. The similarity of block labels was inspected on a per-block basis. To determine whether block labels were synonymous, they were compared against the authors' labels assigned to the same block. Cases where block labels were synonymous would prove that authors' labels were correct. In contrast, nonsynonymous labels would show whether any of the authors' labels needed to be changed or adjusted to match the specific block type. The number of blocks with nonsynonymous variations varied significantly between different websites presented during the survey. As we noted before, these websites were selected to be similar in terms of content structure. Based on that, we can assume that the presence of these variations depends on the visual styling used by a website. Websites with more complex designs had a greater block variety. On average, each block had 2.3 nonsynonymous variations (0.6186 std.). Most of the time, it was two or three variations per block, but there were also some outliers. Seven blocks had four nonsynonymous variations, which was the most observed during the survey. Not a single block had more than five nonsynonymous variations. The collected data analysis showed what naming respondents used for block labeling. This was required to see if it was similar (matched 75.41% of the cases) to the one proposed and used during dataset testing by authors. Overall, the labels that respondents used were either the same or synonymous with those used during dataset testing. That proved that the initial block types chosen for block labeling will be acceptable and understandable for other users. Some of the block types collected during the experiment were data-focused. They described the data rather than its purpose. These kinds of labels are not suitable for the dataset since labels should be abstract from the content. For example, for the restaurant website, label names contained dish names rather than being abstract (\"egg sandwich\" instead of \"menu entry\" or \"dish name/title\"). Having block labels tied too closely to the