Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'what is my zodiac sign' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Solar power generated in Russia | r=0.99 | 10yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Kazakhstan | r=0.98 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Solar power generated in Mauritius | r=0.97 | 10yrs | Yes! |
The number of nursing instructors and teachers in Florida | r=0.97 | 18yrs | No |
Renewable energy production in Australia | r=0.97 | 18yrs | No |
The number of compliance officers in Iowa | r=0.96 | 13yrs | No |
Google's annual advertising revenue | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
Cost to send a letter via the USPS | r=0.95 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Total length of SmarterEveryDay YouTube videos | r=0.94 | 17yrs | No |
Air pollution in Vincennes, Indiana | r=0.94 | 8yrs | Yes! |
The number of marriage therapists in Illinois | r=0.88 | 19yrs | No |
Air quality in Boston | r=0.87 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'what is my zodiac sign' 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.)