Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'unicorns' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Average number of comments on The Game Theorists YouTube videos | r=0.94 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Total comments on The Game Theorists YouTube videos | r=0.94 | 15yrs | Yes! |
The number of secretaries in Hawaii | r=0.91 | 13yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Physical sciences | r=0.91 | 10yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Natural resources and conservation | r=0.87 | 11yrs | Yes! |
The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island | r=0.86 | 11yrs | Yes! |
The distance between Jupiter and Earth | r=0.8 | 20yrs | No |
The number of private detectives in Nevada | r=0.76 | 19yrs | Yes! |
The number of graphic designers in Ohio | r=-0.81 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'unicorns' 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.)