Report an error
Number of Scooby Doo direct-to-video films released correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Republican Senators in Kentucky | r=0.93 | 7yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas | r=0.93 | 6yrs | No |
Average views of OverSimplified YouTube videos | r=0.89 | 7yrs | No |
How nerdy Casually Explained YouTube video titles are | r=0.82 | 8yrs | No |
Gasoline pumped in Niger | r=0.77 | 24yrs | Yes! |
How trendy Casually Explained YouTube video titles are | r=0.73 | 8yrs | No |
Blue cheese consumption | r=0.71 | 24yrs | No |
Automotive recalls issued by Toyota | r=0.7 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Holden | r=0.69 | 25yrs | No |
Italian-type cheese consumption | r=0.65 | 24yrs | No |
Butter consumption | r=0.65 | 24yrs | Yes! |
Academy Award Best Actress Winner's Age | r=0.5 | 24yrs | Yes! |
Number of Scooby Doo direct-to-video films released 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.)