Analyzing and mining a code search engine usage log
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents an analysis of a year long usage log of Koders, the first commercially available Internet-Scale code search engine ( http://www.koders.com ). The usage log comprises about ten million activities from more than three million users. Analysis of the usage data shows that despite of attracting a large number of visitors, Koders has a very sparse usage and that it lacks regular usage from many of its users. When compared to Web search, search behavior in Koders showed many similar patterns. A topic modeling analysis of the usage data shows what topics users of Koders are looking for. Observations on the prevalence of these topics among the users, and observations on how search and download activities vary across topics, lead to the conclusion that users who find code search engines usable are those who already know to a high level of specificity what to look for. This paper also presents a general categorization of these topics that provides insights on the different ways code search engine users express their queries. It identifies various forms of queries in Koders’s log and the kinds of results addressed by the queries. It also provides several suggestions for improvements in code search engines based on the analysis of usage, topics, and query forms. The work presented in this paper is the first of its kind that reveals several insights on the usage of an Internet-Scale code search engine.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Searches online often lead to irrelevant code and supporting documents, except after developers determined the right search terms for specific subtopics.
“Another study of how developers search online resources corroborated that searches often lead to irrelevant code and supporting documents, except after developers had determined the right search terms for specific subtopics [2].”
From Foraging and navigations, fundamentally: developers' predictions of value and cost (2016) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 85 · Cited by 90
- Authors
- Bajracharya, S. K., & Lopes, C. V.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bajracharya, Sushil Krishna
- Venue
- Empirical Software Engineering
- Published
- 2010-09-18
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4-5
- Pages
- 424-466
- ISSN
- 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7616
- OpenAlex
- W1965636883
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Empirical Software Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0347902)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- code search engines, search behavior, topic modeling, usability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review