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 'cicada 3301' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Total likes of LEMMiNO YouTube videos | r=0.94 | 12yrs | Yes! |
The number of massage therapists in Alaska | r=0.93 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Noel | r=0.92 | 17yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Marjorie | r=0.91 | 17yrs | No |
Average temperature in San Diego | r=0.91 | 17yrs | No |
Petroluem consumption in New Caledonia | r=0.9 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Solomon | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
How trendy MinuteEarth YouTube video titles are | r=0.85 | 11yrs | Yes! |
The distance between Jupiter and Earth | r=0.6 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'cicada 3301' 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.)