Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Malaysia Airlines' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Kerosene used in Laos | r=0.97 | 14yrs | No |
Portion of all US dairy skim-solids allocated to the production of whey products (net) | r=0.96 | 14yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Elsa | r=0.95 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'whip nae nae' meme | r=0.93 | 9yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Mozambique | r=0.91 | 14yrs | No |
Number of articles Matt Levine published on Bloomberg on Thursdays | r=0.82 | 10yrs | No |
Boston Celtics' NBA season loss count | r=0.77 | 15yrs | No |
Super Bowl point difference | r=0.71 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'Malaysia Airlines' 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.)