Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'how to get to antartica' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Virginia | r=0.98 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Montana | r=0.96 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in Mississippi | r=0.93 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Ohio | r=0.9 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in Pennsylvania | r=0.87 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Air pollution in Brunswick, Georgia | r=0.85 | 19yrs | Yes! |
The number of CEOs in California | r=0.74 | 19yrs | No |
US household spending on beef | r=0.73 | 19yrs | No |
Rainfall in San Francisco | r=0.56 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to get to antartica' 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.)