Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Jennifer Lopez' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Total views on PBS Space Time YouTube videos | r=0.97 | 9yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Business and management | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
The number of tax collectors in New Mexico | r=0.93 | 13yrs | No |
The number of aerospace engineers in Virginia | r=0.81 | 19yrs | No |
The number of zoologists in Louisiana | r=0.8 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'trollface' meme | r=0.76 | 18yrs | No |
How geeky MrBeast's YouTube video titles are | r=0.75 | 12yrs | No |
UFO sightings in Illinois | r=0.73 | 18yrs | No |
Arson in New York | r=0.7 | 19yrs | No |
Number of films featuring Tom Hanks | r=0.54 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Jennifer Lopez' 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.)