Report an error
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for O.J. Simpson correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the 'whip nae nae' meme | r=0.95 | 8yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Taylor Swift' | r=0.73 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'why do i have green poop' | r=0.68 | 18yrs | No |
Biomass power generated in Madagascar | r=-0.95 | 12yrs | No |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for O.J. Simpson 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.)