Report an error
Average number of comments on 'Be Smart' science YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of insurance underwriters in Montana | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
The number of university engineering teachers in Indiana | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
Automotive recalls issued by Keystone RV Company | r=0.91 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Holden | r=0.91 | 10yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Jamaica | r=0.88 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'expanding brain' meme | r=0.7 | 11yrs | No |
Average number of comments on 'Be Smart' science 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.)