Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'xkcd' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in literature | r=0.99 | 10yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Accounting | r=0.99 | 11yrs | Yes! |
The number of executive administrative assistants in Tennessee | r=0.99 | 13yrs | No |
US Undergraduate Enrollment | r=0.96 | 16yrs | No |
Bankruptcy filings in the US | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Engineering technologies | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Business | r=0.95 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Burglaries in New Hampshire | r=0.93 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Jayden | r=0.92 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Gabriella | r=0.92 | 16yrs | No |
The divorce rate in Alaska | r=0.92 | 15yrs | No |
GMO use in cotton in Alabama | r=0.88 | 16yrs | Yes! |
The number of books by Stephen King published | r=0.74 | 8yrs | No |
The number of movies Elijah Wood appeared in | r=0.66 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'xkcd' 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.)