Report an error
Votes for Democratic Senators in New York correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for Confirmation bias | r=0.99 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Liv Tyler appeared in | r=0.97 | 7yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Benin | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
Annual ATP Tour earnings of Rafael Nadal | r=0.92 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'why do i have green poop' | r=0.89 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Leonardo DiCaprio appeared in | r=0.89 | 9yrs | No |
Telefónica's stock price (TEF) | r=0.89 | 6yrs | No |
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras' stock price (PBR) | r=0.88 | 6yrs | No |
Hot days in New York | r=0.82 | 15yrs | No |
The number of survey researchers in New York | r=0.75 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in New York 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.)