Report an error
The number of statisticians in Vermont correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Google searches for 'who is alexa' | r=0.96 | 16yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'takeout near me' | r=0.94 | 18yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'do vaccines work' | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'that is sus' | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No |
| Cost to send a letter via the USPS | r=0.88 | 17yrs | No |
| xkcd comics published about research | r=0.77 | 16yrs | No |
The number of statisticians in Vermont 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.)