Hmm. I did a quick test on searching for some DOIs, and in fact Lagotto's syntax works fine. But most articles in the world are not in fact referenced in Wikipedia. I searched for DOI and found an example DOI: 10.1016/j.fgb.2007.07.013. All of these searches give the same 2 results:
10.1016/j.fgb.2007.07.013
"10.1016/j.fgb.2007.07.013"
insource:10.1016/j.fgb.2007.07.013 gives a third result, but it's actually not relevant (it's a partial match on "10.1016/j.fgb"). So maybe Nemo should withdraw the suggestion to Lagotto entirely?
What we have here may actually just be 50,000 searches (per hour) for things that do not exist in Wikipedia, and zero results is the correct answer.
It sounds more and more like "zero results queries from known automata" is a good category for the dashboard.
By the way, while I like machine learning as much as the next math nerd, that's not the only relevant approach. I found these guys by hand very quickly, and we can definitely get low-hanging fruit like this manually. (The quot quries are another example.) I also think some minimal analysis by an expert system could identify other instances of clear categories of non-failure zero-results (like prefix searches; the series ant ... antm ... antma ... antman is clearly going somewhere, even though antma has no results.)
—Trey