Report an error
Popularity of the first name Blair correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The TJX Companies' stock price (TJX) | r=0.99 | 21yrs | Yes! |
Starbucks' stock price (SBUX) | r=0.99 | 21yrs | No |
American Tower's stock price (AMT) | r=0.98 | 21yrs | No |
The Walt Disney Company's stock price (DIS) | r=0.98 | 21yrs | No |
O'Reilly Automotive's stock price (ORLY) | r=0.98 | 21yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'how to learn python' | r=0.98 | 16yrs | No |
Average length of LEMMiNO YouTube videos | r=0.97 | 11yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Blair 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.)