Bugzilla

An initial investigation can be found here: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1Tkrzb4-ySKwBYMjUQ6lIk1TeD0PTv51I?usp=sharing

This is restricted access in the same fashion as the prior queries.

Because of the comparative rarity of events, a sample size of 25,000 was chosen from a single day (July 19th, 2023). This covers both the `TopSites` and `QuickSuggest` event pings.

Looking at field values for Quick Suggest, we do not notice anything out of the ordinary.

We initially see Quick Suggest usage is somewhat low in this population, however, our indicator metrics of this `quick_suggest_improve_suggest_experience` and `quick_suggest_is_clicked` show the values we would expect to see.  Moving on to `quick_suggest_position`, we see the expected mix of values we would hope for. Without considering the distribution, we note no exceptional values, such as negatives, saturation values (e.g. I32_MAX) or string values. `string.quick_suggest_ping_type` looks well formed too. We see only clicks and impressions from this field, with nothing unexpected. Similarly, source sees no surprise values.

TopSites  similarly does not contain any surprises, and the same comments are applicable.

The only metric that gives pause initially is Quick Suggest's `quick_suggest_iab_category`. However, further investigation finds that this field's unexpected "single value" is a matter of the rarity of other values. In looking at the larger set of data for the day (which exceeds the in-memory capability of the collab notebook), we confirm that values adhere to their expected possibilities.

In both cases, the string values for the advertiser fields are well formed, and align with expectations in terms of what we would expect to see from the population.

An initial investigation can be found here: {todo, post this back in}

This is restricted access in the same fashion as the prior queries.

Because of the comparative rarity of events, a sample size of 25,000 was chosen from a single day (July 19th, 2023). This covers both the `TopSites` and `QuickSuggest` event pings.

Looking at field values for Quick Suggest, we do not notice anything out of the ordinary.

We initially see Quick Suggest usage is somewhat low in this population, however, our indicator metrics of this `quick_suggest_improve_suggest_experience` and `quick_suggest_is_clicked` show the values we would expect to see.  Moving on to `quick_suggest_position`, we see the expected mix of values we would hope for. Without considering the distribution, we note no exceptional values, such as negatives, saturation values (e.g. I32_MAX) or string values. `string.quick_suggest_ping_type` looks well formed too. We see only clicks and impressions from this field, with nothing unexpected. Similarly, source sees no surprise values.

TopSites  similarly does not contain any surprises, and the same comments are applicable.

The only metric that gives pause initially is Quick Suggest's `quick_suggest_iab_category`. However, further investigation finds that this field's unexpected "single value" is a matter of the rarity of other values. In looking at the larger set of data for the day (which exceeds the in-memory capability of the collab notebook), we confirm that values adhere to their expected possibilities.

In both cases, the string values for the advertiser fields are well formed, and align with expectations in terms of what we would expect to see from the population.

An initial investigation can be found here: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1Tkrzb4-ySKwBYMjUQ6lIk1TeD0PTv51I

This is restricted access in the same fashion as the prior queries.

Because of the comparative rarity of events, a sample size of 25,000 was chosen from a single day (July 19th, 2023). This covers both the `TopSites` and `QuickSuggest` event pings.

Looking at field values for Quick Suggest, we do not notice anything out of the ordinary.

We initially see Quick Suggest usage is somewhat low in this population, however, our indicator metrics of this `quick_suggest_improve_suggest_experience` and `quick_suggest_is_clicked` show the values we would expect to see.  Moving on to `quick_suggest_position`, we see the expected mix of values we would hope for. Without considering the distribution, we note no exceptional values, such as negatives, saturation values (e.g. I32_MAX) or string values. `string.quick_suggest_ping_type` looks well formed too. We see only clicks and impressions from this field, with nothing unexpected. Similarly, source sees no surprise values.

TopSites  similarly does not contain any surprises, and the same comments are applicable.

The only metric that gives pause initially is Quick Suggest's `quick_suggest_iab_category`. However, further investigation finds that this field's unexpected "single value" is a matter of the rarity of other values. In looking at the larger set of data for the day (which exceeds the in-memory capability of the collab notebook), we confirm that values adhere to their expected possibilities.

In both cases, the string values for the advertiser fields are well formed, and align with expectations in terms of what we would expect to see from the population.