Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'how to apply a tourniquet' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of phlebotomists in Georgia | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
The number of social workers in Washington | r=0.9 | 13yrs | No |
Air pollution in Arkadelphia, Arkansas | r=0.86 | 10yrs | Yes! |
xkcd comics published about maps | r=0.74 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Automotive recalls for issues with the Wheels | r=0.73 | 19yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about physics | r=0.73 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'how to apply a tourniquet' 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.)