Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'where to buy bleach' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.94 | 10yrs | No |
Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina | r=0.91 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico | r=0.87 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Average views of minutephysics YouTube videos | r=0.86 | 13yrs | Yes! |
How nerdy Vihart's YouTube video titles are | r=0.83 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'bazinga' meme | r=0.76 | 18yrs | No |
Grand Slam Finals Played by Serena Williams | r=0.59 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Petroluem consumption in Ireland | r=-0.85 | 19yrs | No |
Electricity generation in American Samoa | r=-0.86 | 18yrs | No |
US Employment Rate | r=-0.9 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'where to buy bleach' 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.)