Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'spurious correlations' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Solar power generated in Romania | r=0.97 | 13yrs | No |
The number of avionics technicians in Florida | r=0.96 | 19yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Ecuador | r=0.95 | 17yrs | No |
The number of lawyers in North Dakota | r=0.94 | 18yrs | No |
The number of consultants in West Virginia | r=0.94 | 19yrs | No |
The number of merchandise displayers and window trimmers in Michigan | r=0.91 | 19yrs | No |
Total length of Tom Scott's YouTube videos | r=0.91 | 15yrs | No |
The number of aircraft mechanics in Florida | r=0.91 | 19yrs | No |
Air quality in Lafayette, Indiana | r=0.9 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'this is fine' meme | r=0.89 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Winston | r=0.88 | 19yrs | No |
The number of statisticians in Maine | r=0.79 | 19yrs | Yes! |
The number of zoologists in North Dakota | r=0.71 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'spurious correlations' also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)