Report an error
Associates degrees awarded in Communication correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
USA Population | r=1 | 11yrs | No |
Google searches for 'reddit' | r=1 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'tummy ache' | r=0.99 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Gender pay gap in the U.S. | r=0.99 | 11yrs | No |
Average milk produced per cow in the US | r=0.99 | 11yrs | No |
Total likes of The Game Theorists YouTube videos | r=0.99 | 11yrs | No |
Average length of Tom Scott's YouTube videos | r=0.97 | 11yrs | No |
Average length of Simone Giertz's YouTube videos | r=0.97 | 8yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Communication 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.)