Report an error
Popularity of the first name Bonnie correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Kerosene used in Mexico | r=0.97 | 40yrs | No |
| Johnson & Johnson's stock price (JNJ) | r=0.97 | 21yrs | No |
| The Walt Disney Company's stock price (DIS) | r=0.96 | 21yrs | No |
| Average number of milk cows in the United States | r=0.96 | 43yrs | No |
| Cost to send a letter via the USPS | r=0.96 | 17yrs | No |
| The number of database administrators in South Dakota | r=0.86 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Bonnie 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.)