Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'velociraptor' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Global sales revenue of elevators and escalators | r=0.98 | 7yrs | No |
Global revenue from elevator and escalator sales | r=0.98 | 7yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Massachusetts | r=0.95 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.88 | 10yrs | No |
Global shipwrecks | r=0.88 | 11yrs | No |
Rock N Roll Hall of Fame Inductee Count | r=0.85 | 11yrs | No |
Air quality in Miami | r=0.83 | 20yrs | Yes! |
US household spending on fruits and vegetables | r=0.77 | 19yrs | No |
Grand Slam Finals Played by Serena Williams | r=0.75 | 14yrs | No |
US household spending on eggs | r=0.74 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'velociraptor' 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.)