Report an error
Popularity of the first name Emily correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Physical album shipment volume in the United States | r=0.98 | 24yrs | No |
| The number of conveyor operators in New Jersey | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
| US birth rates of triplets or more | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
| Gasoline pumped in Denmark | r=0.96 | 43yrs | No |
| Nuclear power generation in Germany | r=0.96 | 31yrs | No |
| Arson in Idaho | r=0.96 | 22yrs | No |
| Ice cream consumption | r=0.94 | 32yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'snoop dog' | r=0.94 | 19yrs | No |
| Arson in Iowa | r=0.91 | 22yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'report UFO sighting' | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Emily 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.)