Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'luke skywalker' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Fayetteville, North Carolina | r=0.99 | 7yrs | No |
Air pollution in Keene, New Hampshire | r=0.97 | 12yrs | No |
Air pollution in Gadsden, Alabama | r=0.94 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Global sales revenue of elevators and escalators | r=0.92 | 7yrs | No |
Javier Mascherano's International Match Count | r=0.88 | 13yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'minions' meme | r=0.85 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'pepe' meme | r=0.81 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'the dress black blue white gold' meme | r=0.8 | 18yrs | No |
CVS stock price (CVS) | r=0.77 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'luke skywalker' 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.)