Report an error
Popularity of the first name Aaliyah correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Petroluem consumption in Saint Kitts and Nevis | r=0.96 | 42yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in literature | r=0.96 | 10yrs | No |
Nuclear power generation in Brazil | r=0.96 | 40yrs | No |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Egypt | r=0.96 | 42yrs | No |
UFO sightings in California | r=0.94 | 46yrs | No |
Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.92 | 38yrs | No |
US kids in public school | r=0.91 | 33yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Taylor Swift' | r=0.74 | 17yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Aaliyah 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.)