Additional Info: I asked a large language model, 'On a scale of 1-10, how _______ do you think this YouTube video title is?' for every video.
Report an error
How cool LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The distance between Jupiter and the Sun | r=0.98 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'chuck norris' meme | r=0.97 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Johanna | r=0.97 | 8yrs | No |
The number of marriage therapists in Arizona | r=0.93 | 8yrs | No |
The number of psychiatrists in Colorado | r=0.91 | 8yrs | No |
The distance between Jupiter and Venus | r=0.89 | 9yrs | No |
MTV VMA Viewer Count | r=0.86 | 8yrs | No |
Air pollution in Stockton, California | r=0.86 | 9yrs | No |
AT&T Inc.'s stock price (T) | r=0.8 | 9yrs | No |
How cool LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are 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.)