Report an error
Average number of comments on Casually Explained YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the first name Jane | r=0.92 | 8yrs | No |
The number of movies Audrey Hepburn appeared in | r=0.92 | 7yrs | No |
Patents granted to Microsoft | r=0.92 | 8yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about politics | r=0.87 | 9yrs | No |
The number of parking enforcement workers in Indiana | r=0.59 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Rainfall in San Francisco | r=-0.86 | 8yrs | No |
Average number of comments on Casually Explained 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.)