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 butterfly' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Suriname | r=0.94 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Dara | r=0.89 | 17yrs | No |
The number of university cultural studies teachers in Missouri | r=0.89 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Chad | r=0.89 | 16yrs | Yes! |
How trendy 3Blue1Brown YouTube video titles are | r=0.86 | 9yrs | No |
How cool MrBeast's YouTube video titles are | r=0.82 | 12yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about physics | r=0.79 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'avocado toast' | r=0.75 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'is this a butterfly' 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.)