Report an error
Total comments on Matt Parker's YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Columbia, South Carolina | r=1 | 6yrs | No |
Air pollution in Asheville, North Carolina | r=1 | 6yrs | No |
Air pollution in Salinas, California | r=0.96 | 10yrs | No |
Robberies in Texas | r=0.88 | 12yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'crying michael jordan' meme | r=0.87 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'who is donald trump' | r=0.72 | 13yrs | No |
Italian-type cheese consumption | r=0.67 | 11yrs | No |
Academy Award Best Actor Winner's Age | r=0.61 | 12yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Sudan | r=0.48 | 11yrs | Yes! |
Total comments on Matt Parker'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.)