Report an error
Votes for Democratic Senators in Alaska correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of movies Amy Poehler appeared in | r=0.92 | 9yrs | No |
China's Unemployment Rate | r=0.87 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Eva Longoria appeared in | r=0.86 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Cate Blanchett appeared in | r=0.8 | 10yrs | No |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Kiribati | r=0.8 | 7yrs | Yes! |
Brad Pitt's net worth | r=0.65 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Joaquin | r=0.59 | 15yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Alaska 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.)