Additional Info: Current total views of videos released that year.
Report an error
Average views of SciShow Space YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the first name Candice | r=0.99 | 9yrs | No |
The number of nuclear medicine technologists in New York | r=0.99 | 9yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Max | r=0.97 | 9yrs | No |
Burglary rates in the US | r=0.96 | 9yrs | No |
Asthma attacks in American children | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Anna | r=0.96 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'willy wonka' meme | r=0.95 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Coral | r=0.93 | 9yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Barack Obama' | r=0.91 | 10yrs | No |
The distance between Jupiter and Earth | r=0.9 | 10yrs | No |
The number of movies Emma Stone appeared in | r=0.81 | 10yrs | No |
Average views of SciShow Space 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.)