If it shrank by fewer (as opposed to more) than a certain number of visits, I don't see how it is a mover… (Changed meaning in the proposal.)

Actually I don't really understand what the text is trying to say. Having it filled with numbers looks like this:

IIRC @tsteur build this feature. Maybe he can say more on that.

Wouldn't they need to shrink by more than 84%? As if it only shrank by 60%, then it's not a significant change since the visits also shrank by 60%.

Also maybe it should say and disappeared rows if shrinking by more than %5$s%% (%6$s).?

Generally, movers and shakers would only show rows that changed significantly. Or only shows new or disappeared rows when they have/had at least a certain amount of visits. But we wouldn't show it if a row with little traffic disappeared.

Not sure if any of that helps?

@tsteur Is it something like moving more than the average increase, because otherwise all movers and shakers could just happen to be above the threshold when all pages are more or less evenly visited?

Maybe it could be worked out from the numbers, but other than that it just gets harder and harder to understand.

So it is a mover if it is in the 84.1th percentile, and also if it shrank by less than a negative of the total, which is to say it is at the bottom 15,9th percentile for growth?
Or, since the average is -64,1, it has to rank below the Q1 H-spread at -84% and below.
That isn't really what "less than" means though…
Something is missing between "n% ___ visits". Of?
"New" entries are the ones that didn't make the cut-off because they previously were seen by too few people (?), and 5% is either where that puts it, the number of visits 117 amounts to as a percentage-wise gain, or it concerns 117 pages…?
The consideration to go missing is to post a greater decline "less than"-than the bottom 7%(?) Or it went down by 7 pp,
and this concerns either (164) unique visits, or pages.

Also:
Date sequence
"Mar 2022" follows 2335, when it could be
Unique page-views changed from dropped from 6510 in Mar of 2022 to 2335 (when?).
Number behind movers
Whatever (number) is, why isn't it there for movers?
Line shifting
One sentence per line would help
Order of categories
"Disappeared" should maybe come before "New", since the qualification for going missing is the reasoning for coming back from disappearance(?) Don't know if that would help.

Is it something like moving more than the average increase, because otherwise all movers and shakers could just happen to be above the threshold when all pages are more or less evenly visited?

Exactly. If visits increase say 60%, then it looks at rows that are increasing say more than 80%.

"New" entries are the ones that didn't make the cut-off because they previously were seen by too few people (?), and 5% is either where that puts it, the number of visits 117 amounts to as a percentage-wise gain, or it concerns 117 pages…?

It shows new pages when the row (label) wasn't visible in the previous period and now the row is there. And the row's visits is 5% of the total amount of visits. 117/2335= 5%. If there were more overall visits, then more visits for the row would have been needed than the 117.

Unique page-views changed from dropped from 6510 in Mar of 2022 to 2335 (when?).

That could be shown in the future but would require code changes. IT's basically shown in the date selector. In an ideal world it would say it directly in there.

Number behind movers. Whatever (number) is, why isn't it there for movers?

Sorry not sure what you meant here?

Hope this helps.

@tsteur
I changed my proposal to how I currently understand it.

isn't quite the same string, so there is room for error.

Edit: As I understand it "New" entries can be ones that disappeared previously.
Instead calling it "Included" and "Excluded" makes more sense to me.

What to put in "Movers are those ___ growing" pages, rows, entries?

I'd suggest to use entries (or rows), as it might be any dimension (like pages, browsers, operating systems, countries, ...)

I'm still struggling with this one. I think it might mean what it should, but I'm not fully sure.
@justinvelluppillai would you understand what this should mean:

Movers are those entries growing more than the 84.1% percentile, or falling by more than the bottom -84.1% percentile when ordered by individual growth.
Everything below 5% of the total amount of visits (5% individually, which is 117 visits within the period) disappears, and appears as new entries only and every time they make it above this threshold (by growing more than 7% individually, which is 164 visits within the period).

@sgiehl that is not easily understood. I think the existing version is slightly more understandable here.

I'm still struggling with this one. I think it might mean what it should, but I'm not fully sure.
@justinvelluppillai would you understand what this should mean:

Movers are those entries growing more than the 84.1% percentile, or falling by more than the bottom -84.1% percentile when ordered by individual growth.
Everything below 5% of the total amount of visits (5% individually, which is 117 visits within the period) disappears, and appears as new entries only and every time they make it above this threshold (by growing more than 7% individually, which is 164 visits within the period).

@sgiehl This is shorter, and does away with "percentile".

For me that doesn't sound like the same before.

Movers grow more in a period than %1$s%% of entries did, or shrink more than the %2$s%% falling the most.

The original text said something about growing more than X% visits. Isn't that something else than growing more than X% of entries did?

@sgiehl True, but the X% isn't a number of visits, it is a percentage, which is actually a percentile gauge from what I remember.
(Ref. the discussion on the original string above)
To get away from the idea of percentiles, "growth" in this suggestion implies something ultimately ultimately measured in page-visits. (This is clear from reading "visits" later.)
It is however clear that it is in the upper (and lower) echelon from "than then ___ falling the most___.

From my reply in that original discussion I had it figured out at some point.