Report an error
Total likes of SmarterEveryDay YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Wind power generated in United Kingdom | r=0.98 | 15yrs | No |
The number of mechanical engineers in Texas | r=0.96 | 16yrs | No |
Gasoline pumped in Colombia | r=0.91 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'press f to pay respects' meme | r=0.81 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'adopt a dog' | r=0.73 | 17yrs | No |
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts store count in the US | r=0.51 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Total likes of 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.)