Report an error
The number of physicists in California correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Michael Schumacher's Formula One Ranking | r=0.97 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Global sales revenue of elevators and escalators | r=0.91 | 7yrs | Yes! |
Global revenue from elevator and escalator sales | r=0.91 | 7yrs | No |
The price of gold | r=0.91 | 12yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'that is sus' | r=0.71 | 19yrs | No |
The number of physicists 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.)