Report an error
US household spending on shoes correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the first name Victoria | r=0.91 | 23yrs | No |
The marriage rate in Ohio | r=0.9 | 22yrs | No |
NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget | r=0.87 | 23yrs | No |
The number of hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists in Louisiana | r=0.83 | 20yrs | No |
The marriage rate in Kentucky | r=0.82 | 22yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Marian | r=0.61 | 23yrs | No |
The number of technical writers in California | r=0.61 | 20yrs | No |
Snow days in Washington, D.C. | r=0.45 | 22yrs | No |
US household spending on shoes 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.)