Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'xbox' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Texas | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Visual and performing arts | r=0.95 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Kimberlee | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
The distance between Uranus and the Sun | r=0.89 | 20yrs | No |
The divorce rate in Illinois | r=0.89 | 18yrs | No |
Arson in Mississippi | r=0.88 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Gabriel | r=0.86 | 19yrs | No |
Burglaries in California | r=0.86 | 19yrs | No |
Air pollution in Providence, Rhode Island | r=0.82 | 20yrs | No |
Robberies in Maine | r=0.81 | 19yrs | No |
The number of movies Dakota Fanning appeared in | r=0.54 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'xbox' 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.)