Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Nicolas Cage' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Philosophy | r=0.97 | 10yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Visual and performing arts | r=0.94 | 11yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Education | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
The number of real estate agents in North Dakota | r=0.93 | 19yrs | No |
The price of gold | r=0.92 | 11yrs | No |
The number of economists in California | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No |
Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.88 | 10yrs | No |
Global revenue generated by McDonald's | r=0.88 | 18yrs | Yes! |
The number of commercial pilots in Massachusetts | r=0.85 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Lyric | r=0.8 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Nicolas Cage' 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.)