Report an error
Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon | r=0.97 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Wisconsin | r=0.91 | 10yrs | No |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon | r=0.9 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Alabama | r=0.86 | 7yrs | No |
Customer satisfaction with Rite Aid | r=0.84 | 11yrs | Yes! |
xkcd comics published about artificial intelligence | r=0.73 | 9yrs | Yes! |
Air quality in Kingston, New York | r=0.72 | 22yrs | No |
Customer satisfaction with Target | r=0.7 | 12yrs | Yes! |
Rain in Detroit | r=0.66 | 13yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Preston | r=0.62 | 30yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Sophie | r=0.59 | 30yrs | No |
The distance between Uranus and Venus | r=0.58 | 30yrs | Yes! |
Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US 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.)