Report an error
Popularity of the first name Cora correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Popularity of the 'drake' meme | r=0.96 | 17yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'two day shipping' | r=0.96 | 19yrs | No |
| Number of Public Library Members in the UK | r=0.96 | 12yrs | No |
| US Shoe Store Sales | r=0.96 | 30yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'cat memes' | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
| The number of dietitians and nutritionists in Texas | r=0.95 | 20yrs | No |
| Robberies in North Dakota | r=0.95 | 38yrs | No |
| Number of internet users | r=0.95 | 24yrs | No |
| Total Number of Successful Mount Everest Climbs | r=0.94 | 37yrs | No |
| Inflation in the US | r=0.9 | 31yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Cora 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.)