Report an error
Total likes of Casually Explained YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Customer satisfaction with JCPenney | r=0.99 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Miracle | r=0.97 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Arson in Kentucky | r=0.94 | 8yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'kermit' meme | r=0.89 | 9yrs | Yes! |
The number of movies Dakota Fanning appeared in | r=0.87 | 9yrs | No |
Google searches for 'who is donald trump' | r=0.81 | 9yrs | No |
Total likes of 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.)