Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'how to annex texas' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Nevada | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Oregon | r=0.96 | 6yrs | Yes! |
The number of phlebotomists in Georgia | r=0.95 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Average length of Numberphile YouTube videos | r=0.94 | 13yrs | Yes! |
The average number of likes on MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.9 | 12yrs | No |
The number of event planners in Connecticut | r=0.9 | 11yrs | No |
The number of human resources specialists in New Mexico | r=0.9 | 11yrs | No |
Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" | r=0.89 | 12yrs | No |
Broadcom's stock price (AVGO) | r=0.88 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Connecticut | r=0.86 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Global Rice Consumption | r=0.84 | 14yrs | No |
GMO use in corn grown in Texas | r=0.8 | 19yrs | No |
Total Points Earned by Barracuda Golf Championship Winner | r=0.77 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Lululemon's stock price (LULU) | r=0.76 | 16yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to annex texas' 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.)