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 'loss' meme correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Amazon's shipping revenue in millions of dollars | r=0.98 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions | r=0.96 | 10yrs | No |
Hot days in Paris | r=0.96 | 9yrs | No |
The number of pipelayers in West Virginia | r=0.94 | 16yrs | Yes! |
The number of dentists in Oregon | r=0.94 | 16yrs | No |
The number of university communications teachers in West Virginia | r=0.93 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Jamila | r=0.9 | 16yrs | No |
Air pollution in Dover, Delaware | r=0.89 | 6yrs | No |
The number of chiropractors in Utah | r=0.89 | 16yrs | No |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Albania | r=0.89 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Number of Public Library Members in the UK | r=0.89 | 8yrs | No |
Google searches for 'flights to Antarctica' | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
3M Company's stock price (MMM) | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
Petroluem consumption in Nepal | r=0.86 | 15yrs | No |
The number of movies Margot Robbie appeared in | r=0.76 | 16yrs | No |
Average viewer count per season of "How I Met Your Mother" | r=0.75 | 8yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'loss' 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.)