Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'minecraft' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of surgens in Florida | r=0.98 | 9yrs | Yes! |
The number of pipelayers in Hawaii | r=0.94 | 9yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Visual and performing arts | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Philosophy | r=0.92 | 10yrs | No |
Season wins for the Denver Broncos | r=0.87 | 14yrs | No |
UFO sightings in Ohio | r=0.8 | 12yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'dumb ways to die' meme | r=0.76 | 14yrs | No |
The number of movies Matthew McConaughey appeared in | r=0.73 | 14yrs | No |
Petroluem consumption in Tanzania | r=0.71 | 12yrs | No |
The distance between Mercury and the moon | r=0.6 | 14yrs | No |
The number of movies Al Pacino appeared in | r=0.58 | 14yrs | No |
Google searches for 'minecraft' 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.)