Report an error
Number of times Garfield eats lasagna in his comic strip correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Popularity of the first name Moesha | r=0.96 | 7yrs | No |
| Patents granted to Kia | r=0.94 | 8yrs | No |
| Air pollution in Claremont, New Hampshire | r=0.92 | 11yrs | No |
| UBS Group AG's stock price (UBS) | r=0.91 | 11yrs | No |
| Air pollution in Bangor, Maine | r=0.91 | 6yrs | No |
| Barclays' stock price (BCS) | r=0.88 | 11yrs | No |
| Number of edits to the Wikipedia article for McGill University | r=0.88 | 11yrs | No |
| Air pollution in Fargo | r=0.88 | 11yrs | No |
| The number of forest and conservation workers in New Jersey | r=0.87 | 11yrs | No |
| Season wins for the Miami Dolphins | r=0.69 | 11yrs | No |
Number of times Garfield eats lasagna in his comic strip 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.)