Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'best breed of dog' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air quality in Lumberton, North Carolina | r=0.94 | 11yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Arizona | r=0.9 | 7yrs | No |
The number of lawyers in Oklahoma | r=0.83 | 19yrs | No |
Air quality in Augusta, Maine | r=0.8 | 20yrs | No |
UFO sightings in Utah | r=0.79 | 18yrs | No |
Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US | r=0.76 | 12yrs | No |
Blue cheese consumption | r=0.68 | 18yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Kentucky | r=-1 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'best breed of dog' 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.)