Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'sleepwalking' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
How 'hip and with it' LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are | r=0.98 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Camden | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in law enforcement | r=0.9 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US | r=0.9 | 12yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'thanks obama' meme | r=0.89 | 17yrs | No |
The number of truck drivers in North Dakota | r=0.86 | 13yrs | No |
Average views of CGP Grey YouTube videos | r=0.82 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'doge' meme | r=0.81 | 18yrs | No |
Total views on AsapSCIENCE YouTube videos | r=0.81 | 12yrs | Yes! |
Fossil fuel use in Libya | r=0.72 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'sleepwalking' 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.)