Report an error
Snowy days in Fort Worth correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of times 16 was a winning Mega Millions number | r=1 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Emma Thompson appeared in | r=0.93 | 7yrs | No |
Goals Scored by Winning Team in Stanley Cup Finals | r=0.93 | 6yrs | No |
Mega millions lottery numbers | r=0.9 | 7yrs | No |
Google searches for 'who is donald trump' | r=0.88 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Jake Gyllenhaal appeared in | r=0.87 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Idris Elba appeared in | r=0.85 | 7yrs | No |
The number of movies Kate Winslet appeared in | r=0.85 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Rachel McAdams appeared in | r=0.82 | 6yrs | No |
Academy Award Best Supporting Actor Winner's Age | r=0.82 | 8yrs | No |
The number of movies Tina Fey appeared in | r=0.79 | 7yrs | No |
Snowy days in Fort Worth 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.)