Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'how to calculate a correlation' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Hydopower energy generated in Greenland | r=0.99 | 15yrs | No |
North American digital comic sales volume | r=0.97 | 13yrs | Yes! |
The average number of likes on MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.97 | 12yrs | No |
Number of households headed by single fathers in the United States | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
The number of market research analysts in Wyoming | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
Michael Schumacher's Formula One Ranking | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'red pill blue pill' meme | r=0.96 | 17yrs | No |
Patents granted in the US | r=0.95 | 14yrs | No |
Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" | r=0.95 | 12yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Germany | r=0.95 | 15yrs | No |
Global Net Sales for Walmart | r=0.95 | 16yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on eggs | r=0.92 | 16yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about science | r=0.9 | 17yrs | No |
Pfizer's stock price (PFE) | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
The number of dietitians and nutritionists in Florida | r=0.83 | 16yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to calculate a correlation' 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.)