Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'housing prices' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Motor vehicle thefts | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Saint Vincent/Grenadines | r=0.96 | 14yrs | No |
Ticket sales for New York Mets games | r=0.95 | 12yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'rickroll' meme | r=0.94 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Mariana | r=0.89 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Rubi | r=0.89 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'pork and beans' meme | r=0.88 | 16yrs | No |
Total value of all $50 bills printed | r=0.87 | 12yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Engineering technologies | r=0.85 | 10yrs | No |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for Benjamin Franklin | r=0.85 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'housing prices' 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.)