Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 't-rex' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of tapers in New Mexico | r=0.96 | 16yrs | No |
The number of compensation and benefits managers in Delaware | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
The number of librarians in Pennsylvania | r=0.95 | 15yrs | No |
Ticket sales for Chicago White Sox games | r=0.94 | 16yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Greenland | r=0.93 | 18yrs | No |
Ticket sales for New York Yankees games | r=0.93 | 16yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in New Zealand | r=0.92 | 18yrs | No |
Ticket sales for Los Angeles Angels games | r=0.92 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Caden | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No |
The number of librarians in Arkansas | r=0.88 | 15yrs | No |
Annual book sales in the US | r=0.86 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Andreas | r=0.79 | 19yrs | No |
The number of surveying and mapping technicians in Washington | r=0.73 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 't-rex' 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.)