Report an error
Popularity of the first name Alicia correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| The number of postal service machine operators in Colorado | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
| The marriage rate in Idaho | r=0.99 | 23yrs | No |
| The number of telemarketers in California | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
| The marriage rate in Nevada | r=0.99 | 23yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'learn spanish' | r=0.98 | 19yrs | No |
| Burglaries in California | r=0.97 | 38yrs | No |
| Arson in United States | r=0.96 | 38yrs | No |
| Burglary rates in the US | r=0.96 | 38yrs | No |
| xkcd comics published about romance | r=0.96 | 16yrs | No |
| Air pollution in San Diego, California | r=0.95 | 43yrs | No |
| Kerosene used in Argentina | r=0.94 | 42yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Alicia 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.)