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 'thats what she said' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of judicial law clerks in Missouri | r=0.98 | 12yrs | No |
The number of radiation therapists in California | r=0.94 | 17yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Mississippi | r=0.92 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Virginia | r=0.92 | 6yrs | No |
Total comments on Simone Giertz's YouTube videos | r=0.91 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Geothermal power generated in Ethiopia | r=0.89 | 16yrs | Yes! |
The number of movies Mila Kunis appeared in | r=0.87 | 17yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Bermuda | r=0.87 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Montana | r=0.82 | 6yrs | No |
Average views of Simone Giertz's YouTube videos | r=0.73 | 10yrs | No |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for Boston Consulting Group (BCG) | r=0.62 | 17yrs | No |
How nerdy The Game Theorists YouTube video titles are | r=-0.93 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'thats what she said' 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.)