Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0327606 = product of:
  0.0655212 = sum of:
    0.0655212 = product of:
      0.1310424 = sum of:
        0.1310424 = weight(_text_:i in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1310424 = score(doc=5654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.6667539 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.014478277 = product of:
  0.028956555 = sum of:
    0.028956555 = product of:
      0.05791311 = sum of:
        0.05791311 = weight(_text_:i in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05791311 = score(doc=2017,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

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

0.008460568 = product of:
  0.016921137 = sum of:
    0.016921137 = product of:
      0.067684546 = sum of:
        0.067684546 = weight(_text_:authors in 2040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067684546 = score(doc=2040,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 2040, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2040)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.