Report an error
Global count of Health & Fitness Clubs correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of internet users | r=0.98 | 8yrs | No |
Number of Public Library Members in the UK | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
The wind speed in Phoenix | r=0.94 | 10yrs | No |
The number of real estate agents in Massachusetts | r=0.77 | 11yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Moesha | r=0.77 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Antonia | r=0.73 | 11yrs | No |
The distance between Mars and Mercury | r=0.66 | 11yrs | No |
The number of librarians in Louisiana | r=-0.96 | 10yrs | No |
Global count of Health & Fitness Clubs 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.)