Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'who is jk rowling' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of solar photovoltaic installers in New Jersey | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
The Coca-Cola Company's stock price (KO) | r=0.93 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Butter consumption | r=0.92 | 18yrs | No |
Average milk produced per cow in the US | r=0.92 | 19yrs | No |
Average temperature in Miami | r=0.84 | 20yrs | No |
Total runs scored in the World Series | r=0.48 | 10yrs | No |
Google searches for 'who is jk rowling' 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.)