Report an error
Popularity of the first name Ashton correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Google searches for 'matt parker' | r=0.91 | 19yrs | No |
Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.9 | 39yrs | No |
The number of musicians in New York | r=0.89 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'cia hotline' | r=0.88 | 19yrs | No |
Average milk produced per cow in the US | r=0.78 | 43yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Ashton 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.)