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 'is this a pigeon' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of university biological science teachers in Arkansas | r=0.92 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Hot days in Paris | r=0.92 | 9yrs | No |
The number of social workers in Alabama | r=0.9 | 13yrs | Yes! |
The number of pipelayers in West Virginia | r=0.9 | 16yrs | No |
Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US | r=0.89 | 9yrs | Yes! |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Suriname | r=0.86 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Rain in New York | r=0.81 | 15yrs | No |
The number of books by Stephen King published | r=0.7 | 8yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'is this a pigeon' 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.)