Report an error
Popularity of the first name Julie correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Burglaries in Colorado | r=0.99 | 38yrs | No |
| The marriage rate in Arkansas | r=0.98 | 23yrs | No |
| The divorce rate in Tennessee | r=0.98 | 23yrs | No |
| Kerosene used in Turkiye | r=0.97 | 43yrs | No |
| US household spending on books | r=0.96 | 23yrs | No |
| Burglaries in Oklahoma | r=0.94 | 38yrs | No |
| Average number of milk cows in the United States | r=0.93 | 43yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Julie 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.)