Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'stop hitting yourself' correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| The number of orderlies in Tennessee | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
| Bachelor's degrees awarded in Visual and performing arts | r=0.95 | 10yrs | Yes! |
| Amount spent on Pet Gifts on Valentine's Day in the US | r=0.93 | 9yrs | No |
| The number of computer network support specialists in Texas | r=0.92 | 11yrs | No |
| Associates degrees awarded in law enforcement | r=0.87 | 11yrs | No |
| Votes for Democratic Senators in Florida | r=0.85 | 6yrs | Yes! |
| Master's degrees awarded in Philosophy and religious studies | r=0.79 | 10yrs | No |
| Popularity of the 'slenderman' meme | r=0.75 | 15yrs | No |
| Global plane crashes | r=0.73 | 19yrs | No |
| Number of films featuring Tom Hanks | r=0.69 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'stop hitting yourself' 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.)
