Report an error
Points allowed by the Dallas Cowboys correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Average length of 3Blue1Brown YouTube videos | r=0.82 | 9yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Texas | r=0.8 | 16yrs | No |
The number of movies Anne Hathaway appeared in | r=0.69 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Elise | r=0.6 | 48yrs | No |
Shark attacks in the United States | r=0.56 | 23yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Iraq | r=0.53 | 42yrs | No |
US household spending on processed vegetables | r=0.51 | 23yrs | No |
The distance between Uranus and Mars | r=0.51 | 49yrs | No |
The number of movies Morgan Freeman appeared in | r=0.5 | 46yrs | No |
NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget | r=-0.53 | 49yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Judith | r=-0.6 | 48yrs | No |
Frozen yogurt consumption | r=-0.61 | 32yrs | No |
Points allowed by the Dallas Cowboys 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.)