Report an error
The number of CEOs in Ohio correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the first name Tiffany | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Jennifer | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Stephanie | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Cindy | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Rebekah | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Rebecca | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Haley | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Abby | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Julia | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Hayley | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
Remaining Forest Cover in the Brazilian Amazon | r=0.97 | 20yrs | No |
Ice cream consumption | r=0.96 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'snoop dog' | r=0.94 | 19yrs | No |
The number of CEOs in Ohio 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.)