Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Rachel and Ross' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Electricity generation in Burkina Faso | r=0.97 | 14yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Burkina Faso | r=0.97 | 14yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Jane | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
Average views of Mark Rober YouTube videos | r=0.92 | 13yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'drake' meme | r=0.91 | 16yrs | No |
3M Company's stock price (MMM) | r=0.91 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Margaret | r=0.91 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Rachel and Ross' 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.)