Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'where can i stream friends' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Republican Senators in West Virginia | r=0.99 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Solar power generated in Oman | r=0.97 | 9yrs | No |
Air pollution in Raleigh, North Carolina | r=0.93 | 8yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'wojak' meme | r=0.93 | 18yrs | No |
Lululemon's stock price (LULU) | r=0.92 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in Delaware | r=0.89 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Eli Lilly and Company's stock price (LLY) | r=0.86 | 19yrs | No |
Visitors to Disneyland | r=-0.93 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'where can i stream friends' 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.)