Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'instagram' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Mathematics and statistics | r=0.99 | 10yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Engineering | r=0.99 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Aurora | r=0.98 | 12yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Elena | r=0.97 | 12yrs | No |
Portion of all US dairy skim-solids allocated to the production of dry milk products (net) | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
Number of highschoolers in the US | r=0.96 | 12yrs | No |
Percentage of Americans with social media profiles | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
Cheddar cheese consumption | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
Air quality in Flagstaff, Arizona | r=0.8 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'instagram' 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.)