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 'slenderman' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Master's degrees awarded in Transportation | r=0.95 | 10yrs | Yes! |
The number of orderlies in District of Columbia | r=0.94 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Number of articles Matt Levine published on Bloomberg on Mondays | r=0.94 | 10yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Liberal arts | r=0.94 | 10yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in literature | r=0.93 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'Minute Physics' | r=0.9 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'stop hitting yourself' | r=0.75 | 15yrs | No |
Arson in South Dakota | r=0.6 | 14yrs | No |
Wind power generated in Mauritania | r=-0.97 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'slenderman' 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.)