Report an error
Robberies in Texas correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the first name Martin | r=0.96 | 38yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Cody | r=0.96 | 38yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Blanca | r=0.96 | 38yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Jamal | r=0.95 | 38yrs | No |
Portion of all US dairy skim-solids allocated to the production of fluid beverage milk | r=0.91 | 22yrs | No |
Frozen yogurt consumption | r=0.91 | 32yrs | No |
Total comments on Matt Parker's YouTube videos | r=0.88 | 12yrs | No |
Milk consumption | r=0.87 | 32yrs | No |
Disney movies released | r=0.86 | 23yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Nintendo' | r=0.85 | 15yrs | No |
Canned whole evaporated and condensed milk consumption | r=0.72 | 32yrs | No |
Robberies in Texas 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.)