Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0030723885 = product of:
  0.009217165 = sum of:
    0.009217165 = product of:
      0.027651496 = sum of:
        0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 4052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027651496 = score(doc=4052,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4052, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4052)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Rowlands, I.: Google generation: issues in information literacy. In: http://www.lucis.me.uk/retrieval%20issues.pdf.

0.002307678 = product of:
  0.006923034 = sum of:
    0.006923034 = product of:
      0.0207691 = sum of:
        0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 2040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0207691 = score(doc=2040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 2040, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2040)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Metrics derived from user visits or sessions provide a means of evaluating Websites and an important insight into online information seeking behaviour, the most important of them being the duration of sessions and the number of pages viewed in a session, a possible busyness indicator. However, the identification of session (termed often 'sessionization') is fraught with difficulty in that there is no way of determining from a transactional log file that a user has ended their session. No one logs out. Instead a session delimiter has to be applied and this is typically done on the basis of a standard period of inactivity. To date researchers have discussed the issue of a time out delimiter in terms of a single value and if a page view time exceeds the cut-off value the session is deemed to have ended. This approach assumes that page view time is a single distribution and that the cut-off value is one point on that distribution. The authors however argue that page time distribution is composed of a number of quite separate view time distributions because of the marked differences in view times between pages (abstract, contents page, full text). This implies that a number of timeout delimiters should be applied. Employing data from a study of the OhioLINK digital journal library, the authors demonstrate how the setting of a time out delimiter impacts on the estimate of page view time and the number of estimated session. Furthermore, they also show how a number of timeout delimiters might apply and they argue that this gives a better and more robust estimate of the number of sessions, session time and page view time compared to an application of a single timeout delimiter.