Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'rick and morty' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of anthropology and archeology teachers in North Carolina | r=0.94 | 10yrs | No |
Total comments on 3Blue1Brown YouTube videos | r=0.91 | 9yrs | Yes! |
Air pollution in Bend, Oregon | r=0.89 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Average length of MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.87 | 11yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Jordan | r=0.83 | 9yrs | No |
Difference in score of Steinfeld Cup Final teams | r=0.75 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Bloomberg Money Stuff articles about bitcoin | r=0.64 | 10yrs | No |
Snowfall in Chicago | r=-0.69 | 10yrs | No |
Hydopower energy generated in Portugal | r=-0.77 | 9yrs | No |
Hydopower energy generated in Spain | r=-0.87 | 9yrs | No |
Google searches for 'rick and morty' 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.)