Report an error
Customer satisfaction with Whole Foods correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
London Gold Prices | r=0.97 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Organic Food Sales Volume in the United States | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
The number of political scientists in District of Columbia | r=0.86 | 14yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Precision production | r=0.85 | 9yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Vanuatu | r=0.79 | 14yrs | No |
The number of movies Zendaya appeared in | r=0.68 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Zoey | r=0.59 | 14yrs | No |
The distance between the moon and the Sun | r=-0.46 | 14yrs | No |
Customer satisfaction with Whole Foods 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.)