Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Nintendo' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Intercountry adoptions | r=0.99 | 6yrs | No |
The number of nurse anesthetists in South Carolina | r=0.98 | 11yrs | No |
Global iPod Sales | r=0.96 | 7yrs | No |
The number of sound engineering technicians in Puerto Rico | r=0.9 | 15yrs | No |
The number of elementary school teachers in Oregon | r=0.87 | 15yrs | No |
The number of pipelayers in Nevada | r=0.87 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Robberies in Texas | r=0.85 | 15yrs | No |
US household spending on floor coverings | r=0.82 | 15yrs | No |
Air pollution in Salt Lake City, Utah | r=0.63 | 16yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Nintendo' 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.)