Report an error
Volume of wheat used in the United States as animal feed correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in DeRidder, Louisiana | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
How trendy PBS Space Time YouTube video titles are | r=0.93 | 7yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'Gangnam Style' | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'gangnam style' meme | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
Average number of comments on Numberphile YouTube videos | r=0.92 | 11yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'call me maybe' meme | r=0.9 | 10yrs | No |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in gender studies | r=0.86 | 10yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Titanic' | r=0.78 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Trayvon | r=0.67 | 22yrs | No |
Customer satisfaction with Dell | r=0.66 | 22yrs | Yes! |
Biomass power generated in Qatar | r=-0.93 | 10yrs | No |
Volume of wheat used in the United States as animal feed 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.)