Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'how to treat internal bleeding' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Manchester, New Hampshire | r=0.98 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Global Rice Consumption | r=0.94 | 14yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Slovakia | r=0.92 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Biomass power generated in Tanzania | r=0.92 | 13yrs | No |
Ulta Beauty's stock price (ULTA) | r=0.91 | 16yrs | No |
Air pollution in Kingston, New York | r=0.91 | 9yrs | No |
The number of truck drivers in Mississippi | r=0.9 | 13yrs | No |
The number of firefighters in Maryland | r=0.89 | 13yrs | No |
The average number of likes on MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.88 | 12yrs | No |
Air pollution in Jamestown, New York | r=0.85 | 9yrs | No |
The number of agricultural sciences teachers in Illinois | r=0.85 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'this is fine' meme | r=0.73 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'spiderman pointing' meme | r=0.71 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to treat internal bleeding' 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.)