Report an error
The average number of likes on Tom Scott's YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Google searches for 'adopt a cat' | r=0.97 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Annual US household spending on other household products | r=0.96 | 14yrs | No |
Google searches for 'no cap' | r=0.95 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland | r=0.95 | 15yrs | No |
Los Angeles Dodgers' Win/Loss Percentage in National League West Division | r=0.93 | 14yrs | No |
Google searches for 'dr pepper vs mr pibb' | r=0.7 | 15yrs | No |
The average number of likes on Tom Scott's YouTube videos 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.)