Does the above formula need tweaking? I am still curious about the occasional spikes in usage as well as other questions about how the book is found.

(I don't suppose there is a test database with sample data to develop queries against? I know some of the expensive subscription databases used to offer training sets useless except for learning the ropes.)

Google Search Console (webmaster tools) might be useful. Which Wikimedia group would that fall under?

On 09/08/2016 11:10 AM, Tbayer wrote:

Tbayer added subscribers: APalmer_WMF, leila, Tbayer. Tbayer edited
projects, added Discovery-Analysis; removed Reading-analysis. Tbayer
added a comment.

(For cross-reference, the Analytics-l thread which gave rise to this
request:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2016-September/thread.html#5379
)

Hi Lars,

this is an interesting idea and if it could help editors to improve
content by better addressing the main information needs of readers
that come to a page, that would be awesome.

First a clerical note: I understand you filed this request following
the instructions in the Research FAQ
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ. As mentioned there,
the WMF team that deals with referred traffic, search engine ranking
etc. is the Discovery team, not the Reading team (for which I'm the
data analyst). That does not mean that they will be able to
prioritize such requests, or conversely that I or other people with
access may not be able to chip in as well. But normally they should
be the first point of contact for such a request.