Report an error
Number of viewers of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| The number of tax examiners and collectors, and revenue agents in Tennessee | r=0.97 | 9yrs | Yes! |
| The number of secretaries in Montana | r=0.97 | 9yrs | No |
| Bachelor's degrees awarded in linguistics | r=0.96 | 7yrs | No |
| United States' Fruit Juice Export Volume | r=0.95 | 10yrs | No |
| Master's degrees awarded in gender studies | r=0.92 | 7yrs | No |
| Master's degrees awarded in Philosophy and religious studies | r=0.87 | 7yrs | No |
| Season wins for the San Francisco 49ers | r=0.69 | 20yrs | No |
| The number of movies Brad Pitt appeared in | r=0.61 | 20yrs | No |
| The number of movies Diane Keaton appeared in | r=0.56 | 20yrs | No |
| Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series | r=0.46 | 15yrs | No |
Number of viewers of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 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.)