Report an error
Annual US household spending on clothin for women correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? | 
| Runs scored by the New York Mets | r=0.85 | 23yrs | No | 
| The number of security guards in Missouri | r=0.81 | 20yrs | No | 
| Runs scored by the New York Yankees | r=0.79 | 23yrs | No | 
| Jet fuel used in Greece | r=0.74 | 23yrs | No | 
| Runs scored by the Philadelphia Phillies | r=0.72 | 23yrs | No | 
| Visitors to SeaWorld California | r=0.69 | 15yrs | No | 
| The divorce rate in Connecticut | r=0.67 | 22yrs | No | 
| Visitors to Disney Worlds Magic Kingdom | r=0.67 | 15yrs | No | 
| Miss World's Age | r=0.61 | 23yrs | No | 
| Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' | r=-0.85 | 19yrs | No | 
| Average number of comments on minutephysics YouTube videos | r=-0.88 | 12yrs | No | 
Annual US household spending on clothin for women 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.)
