Report an error
Popularity of the first name Moesha correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of times Garfield eats lasagna in his comic strip | r=0.96 | 7yrs | No |
The number of coil winders, tapers, and finishers in Missouri | r=0.92 | 12yrs | Yes! |
The number of typists in Idaho | r=0.91 | 12yrs | Yes! |
The marriage rate in Colorado | r=0.91 | 16yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about hobbies | r=0.85 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'fbi hotline' | r=0.85 | 11yrs | No |
Global count of Health & Fitness Clubs | r=0.77 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Moesha 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.)