Additional Info: Relative search volume is a unique Google thing; the shape of the chart is accurate but the actual numbers are meaningless.
Report an error
Popularity of the 'scumbag steve' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Vincennes, Indiana | r=1 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Gangnam Style' | r=0.98 | 12yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Business and management | r=0.97 | 11yrs | Yes! |
How 'hip and with it' LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are | r=0.97 | 9yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Education | r=0.95 | 10yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in gender studies | r=0.95 | 10yrs | No |
The number of loan interviewers and clerks in Nebraska | r=0.94 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Brynn | r=0.9 | 17yrs | No |
Total comments on Vihart's YouTube videos | r=0.9 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Total likes of Vihart's YouTube videos | r=0.9 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Global revenue generated by McDonald's | r=0.73 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'i cant fall asleep' | r=0.72 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'scumbag steve' meme 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.)