Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'best mousetrap' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Arizona | r=0.92 | 7yrs | No |
The number of computer network architects in West Virginia | r=0.86 | 11yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Iowa | r=0.83 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" | r=0.82 | 12yrs | No |
How good LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are | r=0.73 | 9yrs | No |
Number of pirate attacks in Indonesia | r=0.72 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'best mousetrap' 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.)