Report an error
Average number of comments on SmarterEveryDay YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Master's degrees awarded in Public administration | r=0.98 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Hispanic cheese consumption | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
American cheese consumption | r=0.92 | 15yrs | No |
The number of massage therapists in Idaho | r=0.92 | 16yrs | No |
US Bottled Water Consumption per Person | r=0.91 | 16yrs | Yes! |
The number of Breweries in the United States | r=0.9 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'humble pi' | r=0.87 | 17yrs | No |
The number of movies Will Smith appeared in | r=0.73 | 16yrs | No |
Average number of comments on SmarterEveryDay 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.)