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 'this is fine' meme correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Google searches for 'avocado toast' | r=0.98 | 16yrs | No |
| Total length of Steve Mould's YouTube videos | r=0.96 | 15yrs | Yes! |
| Google searches for '3Blue1Brown' | r=0.95 | 17yrs | No |
| The number of Breweries in the United States | r=0.95 | 17yrs | Yes! |
| American cheese consumption | r=0.93 | 16yrs | Yes! |
| Google searches for 'white house hotline' | r=0.93 | 18yrs | No |
| Gender pay gap in the U.S. | r=0.93 | 16yrs | No |
| The number of mechanical engineers in Florida | r=0.93 | 17yrs | No |
| Boeing's stock price (BA) | r=0.93 | 18yrs | No |
| The number of statisticians in Utah | r=0.92 | 17yrs | No |
| The average number of likes on LEMMiNO YouTube videos | r=0.9 | 12yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'this is fine' 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.)