Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'is pluto a planet' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Republican Senators in Michigan | r=0.92 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Montana | r=0.91 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Noah | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
GMO use in soybeans in Illinois | r=0.86 | 19yrs | No |
Average viewer count per season of "How I Met Your Mother" | r=0.85 | 9yrs | No |
The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Oregon | r=0.84 | 19yrs | No |
How 'hip and with it' Numberphile YouTube video titles are | r=0.81 | 13yrs | Yes! |
The number of actors in Indiana | r=0.49 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'is pluto a planet' 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.)