Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'best place to work' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Muenster cheese consumption | r=0.9 | 18yrs | No |
The number of university economics teachers in New York | r=0.9 | 18yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on electricity | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
Amount spent on Pet Gifts on Valentine's Day in the US | r=0.9 | 9yrs | No |
Yogurt consumption | r=0.9 | 18yrs | No |
Gartner's stock price (IT) | r=0.88 | 20yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Nebraska | r=0.88 | 6yrs | No |
The number of accountants and auditors in Florida | r=0.87 | 19yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about physics | r=0.74 | 17yrs | No |
Lionel Messi's goal count for Argentina | r=0.74 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'best place to work' 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.)