Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'bing' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Lincoln, Nebraska | r=1 | 6yrs | No |
The number of tax examiners and collectors, and revenue agents in Kansas | r=0.98 | 12yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Visual and performing arts | r=0.97 | 11yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Philosophy | r=0.96 | 10yrs | No |
The number of layout workers, metal and plastic in Louisiana | r=0.95 | 13yrs | No |
London Gold Prices | r=0.95 | 9yrs | No |
Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.95 | 10yrs | No |
The price of gold | r=0.93 | 11yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Dexter | r=0.92 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Electricity generation in British Virgin Islands | r=0.9 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Super Bowl TV viewership | r=0.86 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'trollface' meme | r=0.71 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'bing' 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.)