Report an error
Popularity of the first name Lane correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of lawyers in New Mexico | r=0.94 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'i have a headache' | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
The number of merchandise displayers and window trimmers in Alaska | r=0.85 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in Tennessee | r=0.75 | 16yrs | No |
Points scored by the Green Bay Packers | r=0.75 | 48yrs | No |
Age of Miss Teen USA | r=0.53 | 40yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Lane 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.)