about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,298 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the second variable is The number of umpires and referees in Virginia.  The chart goes from 2013 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The decrease in Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos significantly reduced viewers' tolerance for technicalities. As a result, there was a sharp decline in people willing to engage with intricate rule systems. This, in turn, led to a statewide disinterest in officiating sports, ultimately causing The number of umpires and referees in Virginia to decrease. It appears that when it comes to calling the shots, even the most qualified experts couldn't get the viewership to play along.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that mirrors the mood of a deserted sports field illuminated by the dim glow of computer screens. The scene should convey the eerie silence of empty stadium seats and the hushed murmur of viewers in a darkened room. Include a YouTube video playing in the background with decreasing average views, representing the waning interest in technical videos. On the opposite side of the room, incorporate a stack of referees' striped shirts untouched, symbolizing the decreasing numbers of umpires and referees in Virginia. The resulting image should capture the stark contrast between the typically lively sports environment and the prevailing stillness caused by the declining interest in sports and technical content. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Glitch art 3D Pixar Style Cutsy graphics A TIME magazine cover image High-tech
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia, in the following situation: The decrease in Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos significantly reduced viewers' tolerance for technicalities. As a result, there was a sharp decline in people willing to engage with intricate rule systems. This, in turn, led to a statewide disinterest in officiating sports, ultimately causing The number of umpires and referees in Virginia to decrease. It appears that when it comes to calling the shots, even the most qualified experts couldn't get the viewership to play along.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Amidst the dim glow of computer screens, the once bustling field of sports fell silent. The typically crowded stadium seats remained empty as the hushed murmur of viewers filled the room. A YouTube video played in the background, its average views dwindling. Meanwhile, on the other side of the room, a stack of referees' striped shirts lay untouched, symbolizing the decreasing numbers of umpires and referees in Virginia. The dwindling interest in technical videos had caused a ripple effect, leaving the usually animated sports field eerily quiet.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: Amidst the dim glow of computer screens, the once bustling field of sports fell silent. The typically crowded stadium seats remained empty as the hushed murmur of viewers filled the room. A YouTube video played in the background, its average views dwindling. Meanwhile, on the other side of the room, a stack of referees' striped shirts lay untouched, symbolizing the decreasing numbers of umpires and referees in Virginia. The dwindling interest in technical videos had caused a ripple effect, leaving the usually animated sports field eerily quiet. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that mirrors the mood of a deserted sports field illuminated by the dim glow of computer screens. The scene should convey the eerie silence of empty stadium seats and the hushed murmur of viewers in a darkened room. Include a YouTube video playing in the background with decreasing average views, representing the waning interest in technical videos. On the opposite side of the room, incorporate a stack of referees' striped shirts untouched, symbolizing the decreasing numbers of umpires and referees in Virginia. The resulting image should capture the stark contrast between the typically lively sports environment and the prevailing stillness caused by the declining interest in sports and technical content.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos caused The number of umpires and referees in Virginia to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

The Journal of Social Media and Pop Culture Research

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from YouTube and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and p < 0.01 for 2013 to 2022.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As we attempt to unravel the enigmatic web of relationships between online content consumption and traditional sports officiating, we find ourselves delving into a world where the umpire's call and the YouTube algorithm intermingle like players on a digital playing field. This unlikely convergence prompts us to ask: how can the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos possibly have any bearing on the number of umpires and referees in Virginia? It's a question that gives new meaning to the phrase "keeping our eyes on the ball" in the realm of research.

It's a topic that may seem "out of left field," but the correlation we've uncovered presents itself with a strength that not even the most seasoned umpire could dispute. Our statistical analysis yields a correlation coefficient that's about as clear as a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning - 0.9393871, to be precise. This unexpected connection has us feeling like we've hit a statistical home run, or at the very least, scored a few "data-driven runs" in this game of research.

As we combed through the datasets with the diligence of a coach reviewing game tapes, we couldn't help but marvel at the curious dance of numbers and variables that lay before us. It's as if statistics and sports have decided to team up and create their version of a "dream team," leaving us to wonder if we've stumbled upon the statistical equivalent of a slam dunk.

This investigation was no walk in the park, but as we navigated through the data, we found ourselves chuckling at the thought that perhaps we were on the cusp of illuminating a statistical "home plate" in the unlikeliest of places. Our findings not only shed light on this unexpected connection but also highlight the entertaining and often whimsical nature of exploration in the realm of research.

With each new discovery, it appears as though we're edging closer to uncovering the "grand slam" of unexpected correlations. And while we may not have all the answers just yet, the findings of this study certainly pitch an interesting proposition for further exploration in the ever-expanding field of digital content and its curious confluence with the world of sports officiating.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As we attempt to unravel the enigmatic web of relationships between online content consumption and traditional sports officiating, we find ourselves delving into a world where the umpire's call and the YouTube algorithm intermingle like players on a digital playing field. This unlikely convergence prompts us to ask: how can the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos possibly have any bearing on the number of umpires and referees in Virginia? It's a question that gives new meaning to the phrase "keeping our eyes on the ball" in the realm of research.
It's a topic that may seem "out of left field," but the correlation we've uncovered presents itself with a strength that not even the most seasoned umpire could dispute. Our statistical analysis yields a correlation coefficient that's about as clear as a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning - 0.9393871, to be precise. This unexpected connection has us feeling like we've hit a statistical home run, or at the very least, scored a few "data-driven runs" in this game of research.
As we combed through the datasets with the diligence of a coach reviewing game tapes, we couldn't help but marvel at the curious dance of numbers and variables that lay before us. It's as if statistics and sports have decided to team up and create their version of a "dream team," leaving us to wonder if we've stumbled upon the statistical equivalent of a slam dunk.
This investigation was no walk in the park, but as we navigated through the data, we found ourselves chuckling at the thought that perhaps we were on the cusp of illuminating a statistical "home plate" in the unlikeliest of places. Our findings not only shed light on this unexpected connection but also highlight the entertaining and often whimsical nature of exploration in the realm of research.
With each new discovery, it appears as though we're edging closer to uncovering the "grand slam" of unexpected correlations. And while we may not have all the answers just yet, the findings of this study certainly pitch an interesting proposition for further exploration in the ever-expanding field of digital content and its curious confluence with the world of sports officiating.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Smith et al.," the authors find that the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos have a surprising correlation with the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. This connection leaves us marveling at the curious intertwining of digital content consumption and the realm of sports officiating. It's as if the YouTube algorithm and the umpire's call are engaging in a game of statistical cat-and-mouse, leaving us to wonder if we're witnessing the birth of a whole new field—statistical officiating, anyone?

As we explore this unexpected correlation, it becomes clear that the study at hand has some "striking" implications. One can't help but ponder whether this finding holds weight or if we're simply caught in the statistical equivalent of a "foul ball." In any case, the correlation between these seemingly disparate entities proves to be anything but a "swing and a miss."

"Doe and Jones" take a slightly different approach, delving into the implications of digital content consumption on sports culture in their groundbreaking work. This connection between YouTube viewership and the workforce of umpires and referees seems to strike a chord not only in the realm of statistical analysis but also in the whimsical world of unexpected correlations. It's a topic that prompts us to consider the possibility of a new reality show—perhaps "The Umpire Strikes Back: YouTube Edition"?

Moving beyond the traditional academic research, we stumble upon "The Umpire's Handbook" by John Parry and "Referee!: A Year in the Life of David Elleray" by David Elleray. While these works may not present statistical findings, they do offer a firsthand account of the world of sports officiating, allowing us a glimpse into the everyday life of those whose numbers seem to dance with YouTube views.

On the more fictional side, works such as "A Game of Inches" by Peter Morris and "The Umpire Strides Back" by Ron Luciano provide a lighthearted yet insightful look into the world of sports officiating. Though these books may not hold the key to unlocking the mystery of our correlation, they certainly add a touch of humor to our ponderings. After all, what's a literature review without a dash of literary wit?

Taking a step into the realm of social media, a post by @SportsStatsEnthusiast piques our interest with its musings on the intersection of YouTube viewership and the recruitment of sports officials. This offhand comment serves as a reminder that the digital footprint of online content may hold more sway over traditional domains than we initially assume, leaving us to consider the far-reaching implications of this correlation.

In "BookishResearcher's Insightful Tweets," we encounter a quirky observation that likens the rise in Computerphile YouTube views to a surge in armchair umpires and referees. It's a lighthearted quip, but it pushes us to consider the broader social and cultural implications of digital content consumption on traditionally non-digital spheres. Who knew that YouTube could influence the hallowed grounds of the sports field in such a distinct manner?

As we wrap up this unconventional literary journey, it's clear that our exploration of the connection between YouTube views and the workforce of umpires and referees has led us down a path filled with unexpected turns and delightful puns. Who would have thought that statistical analysis could be so rife with opportunities for good humor? It's a reminder that even in the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's always room for a well-placed dad joke or two. With this in mind, we venture forth into the next phase of our research, bearing in mind that statistical correlations, much like a good dad joke, can often catch us off guard and leave us smiling in amusement.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from YouTube and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2013 to 2022

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As we attempt to unravel the enigmatic web of relationships between online content consumption and traditional sports officiating, we find ourselves delving into a world where the umpire's call and the YouTube algorithm intermingle like players on a digital playing field. This unlikely convergence prompts us to ask: how can the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos possibly have any bearing on the number of umpires and referees in Virginia? It's a question that gives new meaning to the phrase "keeping our eyes on the ball" in the realm of research.
It's a topic that may seem "out of left field," but the correlation we've uncovered presents itself with a strength that not even the most seasoned umpire could dispute. Our statistical analysis yields a correlation coefficient that's about as clear as a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning - 0.9393871, to be precise. This unexpected connection has us feeling like we've hit a statistical home run, or at the very least, scored a few "data-driven runs" in this game of research.
As we combed through the datasets with the diligence of a coach reviewing game tapes, we couldn't help but marvel at the curious dance of numbers and variables that lay before us. It's as if statistics and sports have decided to team up and create their version of a "dream team," leaving us to wonder if we've stumbled upon the statistical equivalent of a slam dunk.
This investigation was no walk in the park, but as we navigated through the data, we found ourselves chuckling at the thought that perhaps we were on the cusp of illuminating a statistical "home plate" in the unlikeliest of places. Our findings not only shed light on this unexpected connection but also highlight the entertaining and often whimsical nature of exploration in the realm of research.
With each new discovery, it appears as though we're edging closer to uncovering the "grand slam" of unexpected correlations. And while we may not have all the answers just yet, the findings of this study certainly pitch an interesting proposition for further exploration in the ever-expanding field of digital content and its curious confluence with the world of sports officiating.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To uncover the mysterious link between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia, our research team embarked on a journey that rivaled the grand quest for the Holy Grail. Armed with the mighty tools of data collection and analysis, we set out to navigate the treacherous waters of online content and sports officiating, prepared to wade through statistical jungles and digital deserts in search of an elusive connection. It was a mission that reminded us of a classic dad joke: "Why did the statistician go to the baseball game? Because he heard there would be a lot of hits!"

We first amassed data on the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos over the span of nine years, from 2013 to 2022. This involved trawling through the vast seas of internet content like intrepid digital sailors, braving the occasional waves of algorithm changes and viral trends that ebbed and flowed like the fickle tides of online popularity. It was a journey that left us feeling like we were on a quest to unearth the statistical equivalent of buried treasure, or at the very least, a trove of amusing cat videos that had somehow managed to elude our screens for far too long.

Simultaneously, we delved into the laborious depths of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to extract data on the number of umpires and referees nestled within the charming state of Virginia. It felt akin to unearthing ancient relics from the annals of workforce statistics, with each data point revealing a piece of the puzzle in our quest to decipher the unexpected dance between clicks on a screen and calls on the field.

Once we had compiled our datasets like diligent librarians arranging books on the shelves, we employed the formidable powers of statistical analysis to ascertain the nature of the relationship between these seemingly incongruous variables. We utilized a combination of regression analysis and correlation coefficients, aiming our statistical arrows at the heart of the mystery in a manner that would make even the most stoic archer envious. It was a process that had us feeling like the statistical equivalent of modern-day alchemists, seeking to distill the essence of digital viewership and traditional officiating into a potent elixir of insight.

In undertaking this analysis, we balanced the gravity of statistical rigor with the levity of intellectual curiosity, recognizing that the pursuit of knowledge should always be accompanied by a healthy dose of humor. After all, as the saying goes, "A good data analysis is like a fine wine – it requires both precision and a willingness to savor the unexpected notes of correlation."

And with that, our methodological odyssey laid the groundwork for a journey into the heart of the unexpected, where the realms of digital content and sports officiating merged in a statistical pas de deux that left us both bemused and enlightened.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from YouTube and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2013 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9393871, r-squared of 0.8824480, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As we attempt to unravel the enigmatic web of relationships between online content consumption and traditional sports officiating, we find ourselves delving into a world where the umpire's call and the YouTube algorithm intermingle like players on a digital playing field. This unlikely convergence prompts us to ask: how can the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos possibly have any bearing on the number of umpires and referees in Virginia? It's a question that gives new meaning to the phrase "keeping our eyes on the ball" in the realm of research.
It's a topic that may seem "out of left field," but the correlation we've uncovered presents itself with a strength that not even the most seasoned umpire could dispute. Our statistical analysis yields a correlation coefficient that's about as clear as a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning - 0.9393871, to be precise. This unexpected connection has us feeling like we've hit a statistical home run, or at the very least, scored a few "data-driven runs" in this game of research.
As we combed through the datasets with the diligence of a coach reviewing game tapes, we couldn't help but marvel at the curious dance of numbers and variables that lay before us. It's as if statistics and sports have decided to team up and create their version of a "dream team," leaving us to wonder if we've stumbled upon the statistical equivalent of a slam dunk.
This investigation was no walk in the park, but as we navigated through the data, we found ourselves chuckling at the thought that perhaps we were on the cusp of illuminating a statistical "home plate" in the unlikeliest of places. Our findings not only shed light on this unexpected connection but also highlight the entertaining and often whimsical nature of exploration in the realm of research.
With each new discovery, it appears as though we're edging closer to uncovering the "grand slam" of unexpected correlations. And while we may not have all the answers just yet, the findings of this study certainly pitch an interesting proposition for further exploration in the ever-expanding field of digital content and its curious confluence with the world of sports officiating.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our analysis revealed a striking correlation between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. The correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 speaks volumes, suggesting a connection that's as clear as a cloudless day at the ballpark. It's almost as if the YouTube algorithm and the world of sports officiating decided to team up and hit a statistical home run together.

The r-squared value of 0.8824480 further solidifies this remarkable relationship, leaving us pondering whether we've stumbled upon a statistical field of dreams. It's almost as if each additional YouTube view whispers, "If you analyze it, they will come."

The p-value of less than 0.01 practically jumps out like an eager outfielder, signaling that this correlation is not just a fluke but a bona fide finding that defies the odds. We couldn't help but marvel at the statistical curveball that this research project has thrown our way.

In the scatterplot (Fig. 1), the data points form a pattern that is as unmistakable as a home run in the bottom of the ninth inning. The visual representation of this correlation is a testament to the unexpected nature of research, as we uncover connections that prompt us to leave no statistical stone unturned.

As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this curious correlation holds the key to unlocking a new era of sports officiating enthusiasts who are just a YouTube video away from embracing their newfound statistical "umpire-tunity."

Stay tuned for more unexpected correlations from the world of research, where even the most unlikely of variables can come together to deliver a statistical curveball that leaves us both amazed and amused.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith et al.," the authors find that the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos have a surprising correlation with the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. This connection leaves us marveling at the curious intertwining of digital content consumption and the realm of sports officiating. It's as if the YouTube algorithm and the umpire's call are engaging in a game of statistical cat-and-mouse, leaving us to wonder if we're witnessing the birth of a whole new field—statistical officiating, anyone?
As we explore this unexpected correlation, it becomes clear that the study at hand has some "striking" implications. One can't help but ponder whether this finding holds weight or if we're simply caught in the statistical equivalent of a "foul ball." In any case, the correlation between these seemingly disparate entities proves to be anything but a "swing and a miss."
"Doe and Jones" take a slightly different approach, delving into the implications of digital content consumption on sports culture in their groundbreaking work. This connection between YouTube viewership and the workforce of umpires and referees seems to strike a chord not only in the realm of statistical analysis but also in the whimsical world of unexpected correlations. It's a topic that prompts us to consider the possibility of a new reality show—perhaps "The Umpire Strikes Back: YouTube Edition"?
Moving beyond the traditional academic research, we stumble upon "The Umpire's Handbook" by John Parry and "Referee!: A Year in the Life of David Elleray" by David Elleray. While these works may not present statistical findings, they do offer a firsthand account of the world of sports officiating, allowing us a glimpse into the everyday life of those whose numbers seem to dance with YouTube views.
On the more fictional side, works such as "A Game of Inches" by Peter Morris and "The Umpire Strides Back" by Ron Luciano provide a lighthearted yet insightful look into the world of sports officiating. Though these books may not hold the key to unlocking the mystery of our correlation, they certainly add a touch of humor to our ponderings. After all, what's a literature review without a dash of literary wit?
Taking a step into the realm of social media, a post by @SportsStatsEnthusiast piques our interest with its musings on the intersection of YouTube viewership and the recruitment of sports officials. This offhand comment serves as a reminder that the digital footprint of online content may hold more sway over traditional domains than we initially assume, leaving us to consider the far-reaching implications of this correlation.
In "BookishResearcher's Insightful Tweets," we encounter a quirky observation that likens the rise in Computerphile YouTube views to a surge in armchair umpires and referees. It's a lighthearted quip, but it pushes us to consider the broader social and cultural implications of digital content consumption on traditionally non-digital spheres. Who knew that YouTube could influence the hallowed grounds of the sports field in such a distinct manner?
As we wrap up this unconventional literary journey, it's clear that our exploration of the connection between YouTube views and the workforce of umpires and referees has led us down a path filled with unexpected turns and delightful puns. Who would have thought that statistical analysis could be so rife with opportunities for good humor? It's a reminder that even in the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's always room for a well-placed dad joke or two. With this in mind, we venture forth into the next phase of our research, bearing in mind that statistical correlations, much like a good dad joke, can often catch us off guard and leave us smiling in amusement.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis revealed a striking correlation between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. The correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 speaks volumes, suggesting a connection that's as clear as a cloudless day at the ballpark. It's almost as if the YouTube algorithm and the world of sports officiating decided to team up and hit a statistical home run together.
The r-squared value of 0.8824480 further solidifies this remarkable relationship, leaving us pondering whether we've stumbled upon a statistical field of dreams. It's almost as if each additional YouTube view whispers, "If you analyze it, they will come."
The p-value of less than 0.01 practically jumps out like an eager outfielder, signaling that this correlation is not just a fluke but a bona fide finding that defies the odds. We couldn't help but marvel at the statistical curveball that this research project has thrown our way.
In the scatterplot (Fig. 1), the data points form a pattern that is as unmistakable as a home run in the bottom of the ninth inning. The visual representation of this correlation is a testament to the unexpected nature of research, as we uncover connections that prompt us to leave no statistical stone unturned.
As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this curious correlation holds the key to unlocking a new era of sports officiating enthusiasts who are just a YouTube video away from embracing their newfound statistical "umpire-tunity."
Stay tuned for more unexpected correlations from the world of research, where even the most unlikely of variables can come together to deliver a statistical curveball that leaves us both amazed and amused.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings present a compelling case for the surprising connection between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. The strength of the correlation coefficient and the significance of the p-value provide robust support for the relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if the statistical umpire has called "out" on any doubts regarding the legitimacy of this peculiar link.

Our research not only confirms the earlier work by Smith et al. but also adds depth to this quirky intersection of digital content consumption and the world of sports officiating. It's as if we're witnessing the perfect statistical strike, leaving us to wonder if there's a whole league of unexpected correlations just waiting to be discovered. Who knew that the world of statistical analysis could deliver such a knockout punch of humor and surprise?

The aforementioned studies by Doe and Jones and their musings on the implications of digital content consumption on sports culture seem even more pertinent now. It appears that our findings underscore the potential impact of YouTube viewership not only on popular culture but also on the workforce of umpires and referees. Could it be that our research is unveiling a whole new dimension of statistics? It's as if we've stumbled upon the statistical equivalent of a grand slam, hitting all the right notes in terms of significance and relevance.

As we consider the scatterplot from our results, we can't help but marvel at the visual representation of this correlation—it's as clear as a well-hit baseball sailing over the outfield fence. Each data point seems to convey a message: "When it comes to unexpected correlations, we've got this game in the bag."

This study has not only shed light on an unexpected intersection of variables but also added a touch of whimsy to the often-serious world of statistical analysis. It seems that sometimes, the most improbable connections can deliver a dose of amusement along with their insightful implications. Just like a good dad joke, this correlation snuck up on us and left us grinning in both wonder and delight.

In the grand game of research, our study serves as a reminder that even the strangest of statistical pairings can lead us to uncover insights that leave us astounded and amused. It's just like when a statistician goes to a baseball game—there's always bound to be a surprise waiting around the next curveball. With that in mind, we eagerly anticipate the next unexpected correlation that crosses our statistical plate. Who knows what amusing revelations might be lurking in the data, ready to spring a statistical quip or two?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and The number of umpires and referees in Virginia. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.

Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.

In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As we attempt to unravel the enigmatic web of relationships between online content consumption and traditional sports officiating, we find ourselves delving into a world where the umpire's call and the YouTube algorithm intermingle like players on a digital playing field. This unlikely convergence prompts us to ask: how can the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos possibly have any bearing on the number of umpires and referees in Virginia? It's a question that gives new meaning to the phrase "keeping our eyes on the ball" in the realm of research.
It's a topic that may seem "out of left field," but the correlation we've uncovered presents itself with a strength that not even the most seasoned umpire could dispute. Our statistical analysis yields a correlation coefficient that's about as clear as a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning - 0.9393871, to be precise. This unexpected connection has us feeling like we've hit a statistical home run, or at the very least, scored a few "data-driven runs" in this game of research.
As we combed through the datasets with the diligence of a coach reviewing game tapes, we couldn't help but marvel at the curious dance of numbers and variables that lay before us. It's as if statistics and sports have decided to team up and create their version of a "dream team," leaving us to wonder if we've stumbled upon the statistical equivalent of a slam dunk.
This investigation was no walk in the park, but as we navigated through the data, we found ourselves chuckling at the thought that perhaps we were on the cusp of illuminating a statistical "home plate" in the unlikeliest of places. Our findings not only shed light on this unexpected connection but also highlight the entertaining and often whimsical nature of exploration in the realm of research.
With each new discovery, it appears as though we're edging closer to uncovering the "grand slam" of unexpected correlations. And while we may not have all the answers just yet, the findings of this study certainly pitch an interesting proposition for further exploration in the ever-expanding field of digital content and its curious confluence with the world of sports officiating.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis revealed a striking correlation between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. The correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 speaks volumes, suggesting a connection that's as clear as a cloudless day at the ballpark. It's almost as if the YouTube algorithm and the world of sports officiating decided to team up and hit a statistical home run together.
The r-squared value of 0.8824480 further solidifies this remarkable relationship, leaving us pondering whether we've stumbled upon a statistical field of dreams. It's almost as if each additional YouTube view whispers, "If you analyze it, they will come."
The p-value of less than 0.01 practically jumps out like an eager outfielder, signaling that this correlation is not just a fluke but a bona fide finding that defies the odds. We couldn't help but marvel at the statistical curveball that this research project has thrown our way.
In the scatterplot (Fig. 1), the data points form a pattern that is as unmistakable as a home run in the bottom of the ninth inning. The visual representation of this correlation is a testament to the unexpected nature of research, as we uncover connections that prompt us to leave no statistical stone unturned.
As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this curious correlation holds the key to unlocking a new era of sports officiating enthusiasts who are just a YouTube video away from embracing their newfound statistical "umpire-tunity."
Stay tuned for more unexpected correlations from the world of research, where even the most unlikely of variables can come together to deliver a statistical curveball that leaves us both amazed and amused.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our findings have revealed a surprisingly strong correlation between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. It's as if the world of online content and the realm of sports officiating have decided to tag team and deliver a statistical knockout. This discovery certainly adds a whole new meaning to the phrase "the umpire's call was out of frame."

The statistical evidence, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a p-value of less than 0.01, speaks louder than an enthusiastic fan in the bleachers, leaving little room for doubt. It's almost as if each additional YouTube view says, "I'm not just a number; I'm a statistically significant data point."

As we close the final chapter of this study, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points to a whole new league of sports enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube, eagerly awaiting their moment to step up to the statistical plate. It's as if the world of online content consumption and the traditional field of sports officiating have joined forces to create a statistical dream team, a match made in a data-driven heaven.

In the grand tradition of dad jokes, we confidently assert that no more research is needed in this area. This discovery is a home run, and further investigation would just be "re-searching" old ground.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Social Media and Pop Culture Research


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Sports Analytics and Entertainment Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Umpire Strikes and YouTube Views: Uncovering the Viral Connection with an abstract of This study explores the intriguing relationship between the average views of Computerphile YouTube videos and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia. We delve into this peculiar intersection of digital content consumption and sports officiating, aiming to shed light on a correlation that has remained shrouded in mystery. Through meticulous data analysis, we uncover a surprising connection that leaves us both astounded and amused.
Our research team embarked on this investigation armed with YouTube data and information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeking to bridge the gap between the world of online video content and the workforce of sports officiating. As we delved into the numbers and charts, we couldn't help but notice how this topic brought a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting a home run in research."
The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9393871 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the years from 2013 to 2022. This finding not only caught us off guard but also had us pondering whether we should start calling foul plays on unexpected correlations more often.
In conclusion, our study not only uncovers a surprising link between YouTube viewership and the number of umpires and referees in Virginia but also provides a lighthearted perspective on the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated domains. As we wrap up our findings, we can't help but wonder if this correlation points toward a new age of sports officiating enthusiasts lurking in the depths of YouTube.

ChatGPT:

"computerphile YouTube videos", "umpires and referees correlation", "YouTube views statistics", "Virginia Bureau of Labor Statistics", "digital content consumption research", "sports officiating workforce", "correlation coefficient analysis", "YouTube viewership trends", "unrelated domains intersection"

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos
Detailed data title: Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos.
Source: YouTube
Additional Info: Current total views of videos released that year.

See what else correlates with Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos

The number of umpires and referees in Virginia
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of umpires, referees, and other sports officials in Virginia
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of umpires and referees in Virginia

Correlation r = 0.9393871 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.8824480 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 88.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of umpires and referees in Virginia) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos) over the 10 years from 2013 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 5.5E-5. 0.0000548649805286027500000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.94 in 0.0055% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 18,227 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 9 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 9 because we have two variables measured over a period of 10 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.76, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos (Average views)435812325676252888346387337615159753166171171461199769166110
The number of umpires and referees in Virginia (Laborers)680530530650570360240240320240




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([435812,325676,252888,346387,337615,159753,166171,171461,199769,166110,])
array_2 = np.array([680,530,530,650,570,360,240,240,320,240,])
array_1_name = "Average views of Computerphile YouTube videos"
array_2_name = "The number of umpires and referees in Virginia"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 5298 · Black Variable ID: 25908 · Red Variable ID: 15436
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0