Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of love in all years. sex 2.60 love 1.00 marriage 0.10
As this Google Trends graph shows, people are looking more for sex than love—not exactly a surprise—and aren't thinking much about marriage... Over the 4-year period, sex is gradually increasing, love is stable and marriage is very slightly declining, which is more obvious in a "marriage-only" graph:
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of marriage in all years. marriage 1.00
Now that we've learnt John McCain's choice of running mate, let's have a retrospective look at the female dark horses in this year's veep stakes:
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of "sarah palin" in all years. "carly fiorina" 3.00 "sarah palin" 1.00 "claire mccaskill" 0.50 "kathleen sebelius" 0.50 "janet napolitano" 0
Fiorina (R) dominates the long 4-year view due to her much-publicized involuntary exit from the helm of Hewlett Packard (HP) in early 2005. So let's zoom in to the last 12 months instead:
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of "sarah palin" in all years. "carly fiorina" 0.46 "sarah palin" 1.00 "claire mccaskill" 0.16 "kathleen sebelius" 0.52 "janet napolitano" 0.16
Sarah Palin (R) got the most attention here, initially due to her 2006 Alaska gubernatorial race but continuing to the present. Sebelius (D) was the only one to get in the neighborhood. How about the last 12 months?
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of "sarah palin" in all years. "carly fiorina" 0.06 "sarah palin" 1.00 "claire mccaskill" 0.02 "kathleen sebelius" 0.44 "janet napolitano" 0.02
Seblius peaked a couple of weeks ago but Palin ended up with the top finish! Needless to say, Hillary Clinton (D) pulverizes this whole group in all time periods but then she was never a dark horse, wasn't she?
This time, we have a contest between social-networking websites:
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of facebook in all years. myspace 2.05 facebook 1.00 orkut 0.60 hi5 0.50 linkedin 0
First of all, mid-2004 is when the first, Orkut, appeared. However, the phenomenon really took off with MySpace which grew very fast in Google-popularity only to be overtaken by Facebook earlier this year. Notice how Hi5 likewise overtook Orkut last January. I am quite surprised at the insignificance of LinkedIn. For a more detailed and complete overview of social-networking sites around the world, see the Royal blog.
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of blue in all years. blue 1.00 red 1.08 orange 0.56 green 0.60
I wanted to face off the primary colors today. However, it would look funny not to have them in their own color, right? So I added "orange." Anyway, the leading red and blue are about equal regarding Google-popularity, orange and green also cluster overall at about half of the leaders. Red does seem to have gone on a tear for about the last year or so. Maybe something to do with the Red Sox? Also, green used to be stronger than orange but about two years ago, orange totally overtook green. What's up with that? Could this have some other sports connection too?
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of mexico in all years. canada 2.22 mexico 1.00
Canada is more popular than Mexico in Google searches. Both are declining but Canada does so much faster than Mexico. However, looking at their occurrence in Google news, both are increasing and Canada does so again faster than Mexico. The two parts of the Google Trends graph seem contradictory... I guess you could say that the countries are receiving more coverage in the news so that not as many people need to look them up? Hmm, you could just as easily expect that more news coverage would lead to more interest hence more searches. I'm not sure about this one. Any thoughts?
I've compared some of the most influential, revolutionary scientists of all time (Google Trends):
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of "isaac newton" in all years. einstein 5.35 "isaac newton" 1.00 "charles darwin" 0.75 euclid 0.55 copernicus 0.45
Einstein dwarfs everybody else: he is truly the iconic scientist. However, his impact makes it hard to distinguish the other four. Let's look at them separately:
Scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of "isaac newton" in all years. "isaac newton" 1.00 "charles darwin" 0.76 euclid 0.54 copernicus 0.45
Even more pronounced than before, we can spot a seasonal aspect to the Google-interest in science: summertime and Christmas are outspoken "unscientific." The possibility that the interest in science is gradually declining is also more apparent in this graph. Finally, people are more interested in Newton and Darwin, closer to our own cultural framework than Euclid and Copernicus.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction... The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.