Report an error
National Lacrosse Champions' Final Point correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
GMO use in corn grown in Texas | r=0.95 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'oprah winfrey' | r=0.93 | 19yrs | Yes! |
GMO use in cotton | r=0.91 | 23yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'shook' | r=0.91 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Will | r=0.9 | 25yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Braden | r=0.89 | 25yrs | Yes! |
GMO use in cotton in Georgia | r=0.88 | 23yrs | Yes! |
The number of university engineering teachers in Kansas | r=0.79 | 18yrs | Yes! |
National Lacrosse Champions' Final Point 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.)