Report an error
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for Arnold Schwarzenegger correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the 'planking' meme | r=0.96 | 12yrs | No |
The number of brickmasons in Kansas | r=0.95 | 20yrs | No |
Ticket sales for Chicago White Sox games | r=0.91 | 19yrs | No |
UBS Group AG's stock price (UBS) | r=0.89 | 21yrs | No |
The number of blender tenders in Colorado | r=0.89 | 20yrs | No |
Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for Arnold Schwarzenegger 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.)