Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'is this a wart' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho | r=0.91 | 6yrs | No |
The number of university biological science teachers in Georgia | r=0.87 | 19yrs | Yes! |
The number of bill collectors in Utah | r=0.85 | 19yrs | No |
The number of foundry mold and coremakers in California | r=0.84 | 19yrs | No |
Drenching rain in Los Angeles | r=0.82 | 19yrs | No |
Deepest snow depth in Charlotte | r=0.8 | 19yrs | Yes! |
The number of CEOs in Delaware | r=0.8 | 19yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Portugal | r=0.79 | 19yrs | No |
Divorce rates in the United Kingdom | r=0.71 | 9yrs | No |
Number of Samsung Electronics Employees Worldwide | r=0.66 | 14yrs | No |
Professor salaries in the US | r=0.62 | 13yrs | No |
Season wins for the Pittsburgh Steelers | r=0.51 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'is this a wart' 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.)