Report an error
Michael Schumacher's Formula One Ranking correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of mathematicians in District of Columbia | r=0.98 | 7yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Practical Engineering' | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
The number of physicists in California | r=0.97 | 10yrs | Yes! |
xkcd comics published about history | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'why do we have daylight savings time' | r=0.95 | 9yrs | Yes! |
The number of physicists in Maryland | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
The number of agricultural equipment operators in Puerto Rico | r=0.9 | 10yrs | No |
Rolls-Royce annual production volume | r=0.87 | 8yrs | No |
Visitors to Universal Orlando's Islands of Adventure | r=0.87 | 6yrs | No |
The number of real estate agents in North Dakota | r=0.86 | 10yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' | r=0.85 | 9yrs | No |
Air pollution in Amarillo, Texas | r=0.79 | 21yrs | Yes! |
Michael Schumacher's Formula One Ranking 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.)