Report an error
Season wins for the Denver Broncos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Philosophy | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Education | r=0.89 | 10yrs | No |
Google searches for 'easy bake oven' | r=0.88 | 16yrs | No |
Google searches for 'minecraft' | r=0.87 | 14yrs | No |
The number of mechanical drafters in Colorado | r=0.81 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'how to do magic' | r=0.46 | 20yrs | No |
The number of event planners in Colorado | r=-0.94 | 11yrs | No |
Season wins for the Denver Broncos 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.)