Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Bratz Dolls' correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Votes for Republican Senators in Georgia | r=0.99 | 6yrs | No |
| Average length of OverSimplified YouTube videos | r=0.97 | 7yrs | No |
| Votes for Democratic Senators in Georgia | r=0.95 | 6yrs | No |
| Wind power generated in Bosnia and Herzegovina | r=0.94 | 11yrs | No |
| Air pollution in Hilo, Hawaii | r=0.93 | 11yrs | No |
| The number of professional painters in New Jersey | r=0.92 | 15yrs | No |
| Popularity of the first name Rhiannon | r=0.92 | 15yrs | No |
| Master's degrees awarded in Psychology | r=0.86 | 10yrs | No |
| Motor vehicle thefts in Texas | r=0.85 | 15yrs | No |
| Total views on MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.84 | 12yrs | No |
| Disney movies released | r=0.8 | 15yrs | No |
| The number of pipelayers in Nevada | r=0.79 | 15yrs | Yes! |
| Robberies in Colorado | r=0.77 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Bratz Dolls' 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.)