Report an error
The number of human resources specialists in Oregon correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Inflation in the US | r=0.99 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'when is new years' | r=0.98 | 11yrs | No |
| Global Rice Consumption | r=0.97 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'i am dizzy' | r=0.97 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'do i need to go to the doctor' | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'ice bath' | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
| Cost to send a letter via the USPS | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to move to europe' | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
The number of human resources specialists in Oregon 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.)