Report an error
Popularity of the first name Tucker correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Petroluem consumption in Brazil | r=0.99 | 42yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to make baby' | r=0.98 | 19yrs | No |
| Average milk produced per cow in the US | r=0.98 | 43yrs | No |
| Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" | r=0.97 | 12yrs | No |
| Fomento Econ's stock price (FMX) | r=0.96 | 21yrs | Yes! |
| Renewable energy production in Canada | r=0.96 | 42yrs | No |
| Popularity of the 'doge' meme | r=0.82 | 17yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Tucker 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.)