Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'black hole photo' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Steamboat Springs, Colorado | r=1 | 11yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'florida man' meme | r=0.97 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Amount spent on Pet Gifts on Valentine's Day in the US | r=0.94 | 8yrs | No |
Air pollution in Muskogee, Oklahoma | r=0.93 | 11yrs | Yes! |
FA Cup final goal difference | r=0.79 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Jet fuel used in Ghana | r=0.79 | 13yrs | No |
The number of real estate brokers in West Virginia | r=0.77 | 12yrs | Yes! |
Number of internet users | r=0.75 | 8yrs | No |
Google searches for 'black hole photo' 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.)