Report an error
Popularity of the first name Caitlin correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Google searches for 'desktop background' | r=0.99 | 16yrs | No |
| The number of postal service machine operators in Wisconsin | r=0.99 | 20yrs | No |
| The marriage rate in Tennessee | r=0.98 | 23yrs | No |
| Remaining Forest Cover in the Brazilian Amazon | r=0.98 | 36yrs | No |
| US birth rates of triplets or more | r=0.97 | 20yrs | No |
| Master's degrees awarded in Social sciences and history | r=0.96 | 10yrs | No |
| Motor vehicle thefts | r=0.95 | 38yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'learn spanish' | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
| Violent crime rates | r=0.93 | 38yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'Britney Spears' | r=0.91 | 15yrs | No |
| xkcd comics published about romance | r=0.9 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Caitlin 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.)