When Google Trends released its annual roundup of top searches for 2025 on December 24, it offered a fascinating look into what people in the United States—and in local hubs like El Paso and Albuquerque—were curious about this year. But as the data made waves online, it also became the center of a very different conversation: how easy it is to misinterpret what Google Trends actually shows, especially when rare or tragic events dominate headlines.
In the aftermath of the December 14 terror attack at Bondi Beach, Australia, involving an assailant named Naveed Akram, some social media users began circulating screenshots from Google Trends. These images seemed to show dramatic spikes in searches for Akram’s name in countries like Israel, Iran, and the United States—before news of the attack broke. The implication? That there was something suspicious, or even conspiratorial, about these search patterns.
But according to both Google and independent experts, these supposed spikes are more illusion than insight. As AAP FactCheck reported, Google Trends doesn’t display the actual number of searches for a term. Instead, it shows how the popularity of a search term changes relative to its own peak, based on a random sample of about 10% of all Google searches in a chosen region and time period. The highest point is set to 100, and all other values are scaled accordingly.
That works fine for popular terms like “weather” or “Taylor Swift.” But for obscure names—say, “Naveed Akram”—the underlying search volume is usually so low that even tiny fluctuations, or statistical noise, can look like dramatic spikes on the chart. “The method they use to scale it, unfortunately, means that when there’s those low volumes, the statistical noise kind of amplifies it, because the denominator you’re using to scale it is such a small denominator,” explained Jacques Raubenheimer, a biostatistician at the University of Sydney, in comments to AAP FactCheck.
Adding to the confusion, Google intentionally adds or removes small variations in the data—what statisticians call “statistical noise”—to protect user privacy. That means a sudden jump in the chart for an uncommon search term might not reflect actual interest at all. “Spikes should not be interpreted as evidence of actual search activity on a specific date or in a specific country,” a Google spokesperson told AAP FactCheck.
Raubenheimer likened this effect to “static on a radio—interference that stops the real signal from coming through clearly.” For rare terms, the data can look erratic, not because there’s a real surge in interest, but because the numbers are so small that random variation takes over. “Generally, everything with a zero trendline and then a sudden spike in values is probably not to be trusted,” he said. “The volumes are just too low.”
The confusion doesn’t end there. Google Trends draws a different random sample every time a user runs a query. For uncommon terms, running the same search for the same region and time frame on different days can yield noticeably different charts. The platform’s location data can also be imprecise. Internet traffic may be routed through different cities or even countries, leading to searches being misattributed. Time zone differences can further muddy the waters, displaying results in the user’s local time rather than the time of the search itself. This, Raubenheimer noted, was a factor overlooked by many sharing screenshots right after the Bondi attack.
Google itself warns that Trends “is not a scientific poll” and that its data should be used cautiously and in conjunction with other evidence. The company’s spokesperson reiterated that for uncommon search terms, especially those that suddenly spike from zero, the data is particularly unreliable.
While the Bondi Beach attack and its aftermath showed the dangers of over-interpreting Google Trends, the tool’s annual summary offered a much wider—and more reliable—window into what Americans were searching for in 2025. According to KTSM, Google Trends categorized regional searches into sports, songs, tickets, and slang for areas like El Paso and Albuquerque.
In El Paso, the top song searches included “DtMF” by Bad Bunny, “Golden” by HUNTR/X, and “Soda Pop” by Saja Boys. Sports fans were most interested in the Pittsburgh Steelers, Los Angeles Dodgers, and Japanese baseball star Shohei Ohtani. When it came to tickets, locals were looking up events like the Michelada Fest El Paso, the Make America Slime Again Tour, and the much-anticipated Canelo Alvarez vs. Terence Crawford boxing match. Popular slang terms included “67,” “Huzz,” “Chopped,” “Clock it,” and “Bet.”
Albuquerque’s top song searches overlapped with El Paso’s, featuring “DtMF” by Bad Bunny and “Golden” by HUNTR/X, but also included “Wood” and “Your Idol” by Saja Boys and Taylor Swift’s “Wood.” Sports searches revolved around the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Mexico national football team, and Mookie Betts. Ticket searches included the Make America Slime Again Tour, Canelo Alvarez vs. Terence Crawford, and New Mexico Lobos football. Slang searches featured “67,” “Huzz,” “PMO,” “Chopped,” and “FOMO.”
Zooming out to the national level, Google Trends’ top trending searches for 2025 included “Charlie Kirk,” “Kpop Demon Hunters,” “Labubu,” “iPhone 17,” and the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Trending news searches reflected the year’s biggest headlines: “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” “government shutdown,” “Charlie Kirk assassination,” “tariffs,” and the “No Kings protest.” Among trending people, Zohran Mamdani, Tyler Robinson, D4vd, Erika Kirk, and Pope Leo XIV topped the charts. In entertainment, the most searched actors were Pedro Pascal, Malachi Barton, Walton Goggins, Pamela Anderson, and Charlie Sheen. For movies, “Kpop Demon Hunters,” “Sinners,” “The Minecraft Movie,” “Happy Gilmore,” and “Thunderbolts” led the pack. TV fans searched for “The Hunting Wives,” “The White Lotus,” “The Pitt,” “The Summer I Turned Pretty,” and “Squid Game.” And in music, artists like d4vd, KATSEYE, Bad Bunny, Sombr, and Doechii were among the most popular.
The lesson? Google Trends is a powerful tool for tracking broad patterns in public interest—but it’s not a crystal ball. As the Bondi Beach example shows, the data can mislead when applied to rare events or uncommon terms, especially if users don’t understand how the system works. For anyone hoping to spot real trends, it pays to read the fine print and keep a healthy dose of skepticism handy.