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 'starter pack' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of marriage therapists in Arizona | r=0.95 | 17yrs | No |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Bulgaria | r=0.94 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags | r=0.93 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Conor | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'cat memes' | r=0.86 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'two day shipping' | r=0.85 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'who is donald trump' | r=0.82 | 18yrs | No |
The number of flight attendants in Texas | r=0.76 | 15yrs | No |
The number of hosts and hostesses in restaurants in California | r=0.65 | 17yrs | No |
The distance between Jupiter and Earth | r=0.62 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'starter pack' 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.)