Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'what color should I paint my house' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Nevada | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Connecticut | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Alaska | r=0.87 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Solar power generated in Central African Republic | r=0.83 | 8yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Maryland | r=0.8 | 6yrs | No |
Biomass power generated in Solomon Islands | r=0.79 | 16yrs | No |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Turkiye | r=0.58 | 19yrs | No |
The number of movies Joey King appeared in | r=0.51 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'what color should I paint my house' 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.)