Coverage

AquariumHQ measures itself against the questions people actually have, not against the number of pages it has generated. This page shows both — including everything the opportunity engine refused to build.

We do not have search volume data, and we do not invent it

AquariumHQ has no keyword-volume source. Rather than fabricate numbers, every candidate records what we honestly know: a structural proxy (an organism traded under several names is widely distributed commercially), an inference from how the domain is discussed, or nothing at all. No estimated volume is stored anywhere, and an audit fails the build if one ever appears.

The numbers

Raw candidates generated: 124,585
After deduplication: 124,216
Accepted as worthwhile: 18,282
Rejected: 105,934
Covered: 17,831
Coverage: 97.5%
Accepted but not yet answerable: 451

What the catalogue holds

Every figure below is computed from the catalogue at build time rather than maintained by hand.

Fish375 records69.8%
Invertebrates84 records15.6%
Plants78 records14.5%

459 organism records and 78 plants. The invertebrates are a deliberately large share: shrimp, snails and crayfish are poorly served elsewhere and are where compatibility questions most often go wrong. Source: AquariumHQ catalogue, computed at build time

internal synthesis only

3,986

single source

585

multi source

539

primary supported

126

multi source agreement

insufficient evidence

conflict detected

What every published claim actually rests on. The largest band is the honest problem rather than the achievement: claims resting on nothing but AquariumHQ's own editorial synthesis, with no external value recorded against them. Source: AquariumHQ evidence portfolio, resolved through the same layer the pages read

Introduced

2,253

Recorded as present, establishment means not stated

1,721

Native

382

Recorded as invasive

Checklist statements held about where these species occur. Statements carrying no establishment means are the largest group and are published as exactly that, rather than being counted as native. Source: GBIF checklist distributions — 4,369 statements, harvested 2026-08-29

What the gate refused

The rejections are the part of this dataset that carries the product rules, which is why the registry is committed rather than summarised.

organism compatibility4,088 accepted

101,023

organism facet11,319 accepted

2,768

combination generated0 accepted

1,560

organism compatibility directory91 accepted

368

distribution4 accepted

183

plant facet800 accepted

equipment facet128 accepted

problem phrasing300 accepted

Candidates rejected, by family. Compatibility pairs dominate because every organism pair is generated and the overwhelming majority are refused as combinatorial noise — which is the clearest demonstration available that the engine can say no. Source: AquariumHQ opportunity registry, regenerated at build time

What was rejected, and why

A technically possible page is not automatically a worthwhile one. These are the candidates the gate refused.

Reason	Count	What it means
combinatorial noise	102,576	Generated by combination rather than by anybody actually asking it
conflicts with welfare standard	1,377	The framing conflicts with the AquariumHQ welfare standard
no plausible demand	918	No plausible discovery or product utility
no unique information	558	Nothing substantial to say beyond restating a single stored field
not a distinct intent	459	Not a distinct intent — the same question in different words
duplicates another opportunity	46	Substantially duplicated by an accepted opportunity

How accepted opportunities are delivered

An opportunity is a question somebody has. A page is a place the answer lives. Separating them is what stops the registry becoming a page-generation instruction — 'how big does a neon tetra get' is a real question and a terrible page.

Delivery	Count
dedicated page	4,884
section of page	12,935
tool	12
not covered	451

By family

Family	Accepted	Covered	Rejected
organism facet	11,319	10,886	2,768
organism compatibility	4,088	4,088	101,023
plant facet	800	800	24
organism problem	550	549	0
organism core	459	459	0
problem phrasing	300	300	3
water facet	197	185	1
husbandry core	136	136	0
equipment facet	128	128	4
organism compatibility directory	91	91	368
plant core	78	78	0
problem core	28	28	0
water core	26	26	0
comparison	26	26	0
equipment core	22	22	0
tool	17	12	0
fish type index	13	13	0
distribution	4	4	183
combination generated	0	0	1,560

Known gaps

Questions AquariumHQ judges worthwhile and cannot yet answer. They are listed rather than quietly dropped, because a coverage figure that only counts what we already have measures nothing.

Gap	Count	Why it is not covered
insufficient data	451	The structured data needed to answer it does not exist in the catalogue yet.

The largest gap is health conditions

The condition entity model exists and is unpopulated. Whitespot, velvet, fin rot, columnaris, dropsy and internal parasites are all high-demand, high-harm subjects, and publishing them without proper sourcing would be the most damaging thing this product could do. They are the first priority for the next sprint.

What exists today

Record type	Count
organisms	459
fish	375
invertebrates	84
plants	78
water concepts	26
husbandry concepts	25
equipment concepts	22
problems	28
conditions	38
comparisons	26
sources	40
aliases	3250