Report an error
Popularity of the first name Juliet correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Biomass power generated in Belgium | r=0.98 | 42yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Egypt | r=0.97 | 42yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to make baby' | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
Patents granted in the US | r=0.94 | 46yrs | No |
Google searches for 'headache remedies' | r=0.93 | 19yrs | No |
UFO sightings in Connecticut | r=0.92 | 47yrs | No |
Google searches for 'scooby doo where are you' | r=0.92 | 19yrs | No |
Air pollution in Prineville, Oregon | r=0.91 | 43yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'i cant even' | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Juliet 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.)