Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'download ringtones' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of executive administrative assistants in Louisiana | r=0.97 | 13yrs | No |
The number of secretaries in Rhode Island | r=0.96 | 13yrs | Yes! |
The number of secretaries in Mississippi | r=0.94 | 13yrs | No |
How good LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are | r=0.93 | 9yrs | No |
The number of lifeguards and ski patrol in New York | r=0.83 | 16yrs | No |
Google searches for 'download ringtones' 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.)