UAP News Tracker.

Methodology

The project's only real claim is that it is an auditable instrument — one whose provenance you can check. This page is that check.

What it measures

It measures attention: how much a topic is written about and read. It does not measure sentiment — whether coverage is favourable, hostile, credulous or mocking. A congressional hearing and a wave of ridicule produce the same spike in these numbers. Tone is a separate signal we may add later; until then, read every rise as "more attention", never "more belief".

The two sides

Supply and demand are never merged into one number and never share a chart axis — pageviews and paper counts are different things measured differently.

The three strands

StrandWhat it coversSources
Disclosure & governmentHearings, agencies, official statementsGovInfo (US), Wikipedia
Phenomenon & folkloreSightings, incidents, cultural coverageGDELT news, Wikipedia
Science & SETIBiosignatures, technosignatures, the searcharXiv, Wikipedia

What "unusual" means

Each series is compared to its own recent history, not to other places or topics. That is deliberate: a raw count glows brightest wherever there are simply more newsrooms or more readers, which tells you about the sensor, not the signal. Comparing a series to itself cancels that out — a rise means attention is unusual for that series. (The charts here currently show a plain 14-day average; the full deviation detector is being built.)

What you may and may not conclude

SupportedNot supported
"Coverage matching our terms rose against its baseline""Global interest in aliens rose"
"Public readership peaked N days after coverage""Coverage caused the interest"
"Preprint output on technosignatures increased""A discovery was made"

Known gaps — stated, not hidden

The underlying series will be downloadable and openly licensed, with a public changelog for any change to how something is measured.