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 'kermit' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of forensic science technicians in Tennessee | r=0.95 | 16yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Niger | r=0.93 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Restaurant spending in Utah | r=0.93 | 15yrs | No |
Restaurant spending in Arizona | r=0.92 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'cat memes' | r=0.89 | 18yrs | No |
Total likes of Casually Explained YouTube videos | r=0.89 | 9yrs | Yes! |
Gasoline pumped in Madagascar | r=0.87 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Gwendolyn | r=0.87 | 17yrs | No |
The number of movies Keanu Reeves appeared in | r=0.56 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'kermit' 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.)