Report an error
Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Google searches for 'how do i stop procrastinating' | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'best mousetrap' | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'shrek' | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'cia hotline' | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'i cant fall asleep' | r=0.94 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'fbi hotline' | r=0.94 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'is this a wart' | r=0.91 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to immigrate to switzerland' | r=0.91 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Baroque Obama' | r=0.9 | 6yrs | No |
Rainfall in San Francisco | r=0.56 | 15yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho 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.)