Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'skydiving accident' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Associates degrees awarded in Health professions | r=0.91 | 11yrs | No |
The number of event planners in Alaska | r=0.9 | 11yrs | No |
Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina | r=0.87 | 9yrs | Yes! |
Associates degrees awarded in law enforcement | r=0.86 | 11yrs | No |
The number of movies Channing Tatum appeared in | r=0.79 | 19yrs | No |
The marriage rate in Washington | r=0.74 | 18yrs | No |
Cumulative goals scored by Vincent Kompany in domestic matches | r=0.51 | 17yrs | Yes! |
The distance between the moon and the Sun | r=-0.5 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'skydiving accident' 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.)