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 'mocking spongebob' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of log graders and scalers in Indiana | r=0.95 | 13yrs | No |
The number of farm equipment mechanics in West Virginia | r=0.93 | 12yrs | Yes! |
The number of private detectives in Rhode Island | r=0.92 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Kyrgyzstan | r=0.91 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Total length of MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.87 | 12yrs | Yes! |
Master's degrees awarded in Engineering technologies | r=0.85 | 10yrs | No |
Robberies in New Mexico | r=0.76 | 17yrs | No |
Robberies in Alaska | r=0.73 | 17yrs | No |
Average views of 3Blue1Brown YouTube videos | r=0.73 | 9yrs | No |
Google searches for 'same day shipping' | r=0.71 | 18yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Engineering | r=0.7 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'mocking spongebob' 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.)