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 'minions' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Keene, New Hampshire | r=0.97 | 10yrs | No |
The number of bakers in New Jersey | r=0.93 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Jet fuel used in Niger | r=0.91 | 16yrs | No |
The number of probation officers in Missouri | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
Divorce rates in the United Kingdom | r=0.88 | 7yrs | No |
Google searches for 'luke skywalker' | r=0.85 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'male pattern baldness' | r=0.81 | 18yrs | No |
Total Revenue of the NFL Teams | r=0.8 | 15yrs | No |
The number of movies Margot Robbie appeared in | r=0.73 | 16yrs | No |
The number of chefs and head cooks in Massachusetts | r=0.69 | 17yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'minions' 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.)