Report an error
Points scored by the Detroit Lions correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? | 
| How provocative OverSimplified YouTube video titles are | r=0.92 | 7yrs | No | 
| How trendy Computerphile YouTube video titles are | r=0.83 | 11yrs | No | 
| Annual US household spending on maintenance and repairs | r=0.69 | 23yrs | No | 
| Blue cheese consumption | r=0.65 | 27yrs | No | 
| The number of movies Elizabeth Olsen appeared in | r=0.64 | 31yrs | No | 
| The number of movies Emma Watson appeared in | r=0.57 | 23yrs | No | 
| GMO use in soybeans in Michigan | r=0.57 | 23yrs | No | 
| Annual US household spending on housing | r=0.54 | 23yrs | No | 
| Popularity of the first name Colton | r=0.53 | 48yrs | No | 
| Global plane crashes | r=0.51 | 48yrs | No | 
| The number of movies Chris Evans appeared in | r=0.51 | 24yrs | No | 
| USA Population | r=0.49 | 48yrs | No | 
Points scored by the Detroit Lions 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.)
