Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Stand-Up Maths' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Kerosene used in Jamaica | r=0.93 | 15yrs | No |
Wind power generated in Fiji | r=0.89 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in West Virginia | r=0.86 | 6yrs | Yes! |
The number of bellhops in Minnesota | r=0.79 | 16yrs | Yes! |
How clickbait-y Matt Parker's YouTube video titles are | r=0.74 | 13yrs | No |
Points allowed by the Kansas City Chiefs | r=0.72 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Stand-Up Maths' 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.)