Report an error
US household spending on postage and stationery correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Burglaries in Utah | r=0.96 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Samuel | r=0.96 | 23yrs | No |
Robberies in Idaho | r=0.95 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Quentin | r=0.95 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Amy | r=0.95 | 23yrs | No |
Burglaries in South Carolina | r=0.92 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Annika | r=0.92 | 23yrs | No |
Robberies in Arizona | r=0.91 | 23yrs | No |
Air pollution in Olympia, Washington | r=0.86 | 23yrs | Yes! |
The number of tapers in Texas | r=0.8 | 18yrs | Yes! |
US household spending on postage and stationery 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.)