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 'pepe' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Malta | r=0.95 | 16yrs | Yes! |
The number of surgical technologists in Oregon | r=0.95 | 17yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Kori | r=0.94 | 17yrs | Yes! |
The number of psychiatrists in Rhode Island | r=0.92 | 17yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Ecuador | r=0.92 | 16yrs | No |
Biomass power generated in Slovakia | r=0.9 | 16yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Burkina Faso | r=0.89 | 16yrs | No |
CVS stock price (CVS) | r=0.89 | 18yrs | No |
Texas Rangers' American League West Division finish position | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
Air quality in Chicago | r=0.87 | 18yrs | No |
Google searches for 'luke skywalker' | r=0.81 | 18yrs | No |
Average views of Mark Rober YouTube videos | r=0.81 | 13yrs | No |
Google searches for 'who is donald trump' | r=0.7 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'pepe' 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.)