Report an error
Bankruptcies in California correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of marketing managers in Guam | r=0.96 | 11yrs | Yes! |
The number of merchandise displayers and window trimmers in District of Columbia | r=0.94 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Unemployment Rate in the United States | r=0.89 | 11yrs | No |
Unemployment in the US | r=0.89 | 11yrs | No |
Google searches for 'why do i have green poop' | r=0.86 | 10yrs | No |
Global annual sales of the Xbox 360 | r=0.77 | 6yrs | No |
The number of marketing managers in New Hampshire | r=0.77 | 11yrs | No |
Air quality in Salt Lake City, Utah | r=0.71 | 11yrs | No |
Bankruptcies in California 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.)