Report an error
Popularity of the first name Brielle correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Minnesota | r=0.98 | 9yrs | No |
Wind power generated in Falkland Islands | r=0.98 | 22yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'how to make baby' | r=0.97 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'headache remedies' | r=0.96 | 19yrs | No |
Global plane crashes | r=0.9 | 47yrs | No |
Blue cheese consumption | r=0.86 | 27yrs | No |
Average temperature in Washington, D.C. | r=0.66 | 47yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Brielle 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.)