Report an error
Votes for Republican Senators in Massachusetts correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of movies Eva Longoria appeared in | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'velociraptor' | r=0.95 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for Taylor Swift | r=0.94 | 6yrs | No |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for bromance | r=0.9 | 6yrs | No |
The distance between Venus and Earth | r=-0.55 | 15yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Massachusetts 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.)