Report an error
Popularity of the first name Raven correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Google searches for 'instagram' | r=0.98 | 12yrs | No |
| US household spending on new cars | r=0.91 | 23yrs | No |
| Disney movies released | r=0.91 | 23yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'white house hotline' | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to immigrate to switzerland' | r=0.88 | 19yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'fbi hotline' | r=0.85 | 19yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to treat internal bleeding' | r=0.85 | 19yrs | No |
| The number of airfield operations specialists in Indiana | r=0.75 | 18yrs | Yes! |
| Total minutes of Doctor Who aired | r=-0.78 | 48yrs | No |
| The number of historians in New York | r=-0.9 | 20yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Raven 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.)