Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'Baroque Obama' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Berlin, New Hampshire | r=0.94 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Michigan | r=0.92 | 6yrs | No |
Total comments on Computerphile YouTube videos | r=0.86 | 11yrs | No |
The number of furniture finishers in Missouri | r=0.85 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Air pollution in Longview, Washington | r=0.75 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Average length of MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.68 | 12yrs | No |
US household spending on nonalcoholic beverages | r=-0.84 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Baroque Obama' 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.)