Report an error
Season wins for the Chicago Bears correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Total views on OverSimplified YouTube videos | r=0.95 | 7yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Iraq | r=0.62 | 9yrs | No |
The number of dishwashers in Illinois | r=0.55 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'oprah winfrey' | r=0.53 | 20yrs | No |
Swiss cheese consumption | r=0.5 | 27yrs | No |
US Biomass Energy Production | r=-0.45 | 17yrs | No |
Season rating of "Two and a Half Men" | r=-0.5 | 12yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Central African Republic | r=-0.64 | 8yrs | No |
Season wins for the Chicago Bears 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.)