Report an error
Popularity of the first name Naomi correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Inflation in the US | r=0.99 | 31yrs | No |
| Electricity generation in Bahrain | r=0.99 | 42yrs | No |
| Number of internet users | r=0.98 | 24yrs | No |
| Number of Lawyers in the United States | r=0.97 | 34yrs | No |
| Petroluem consumption in Poland | r=0.96 | 43yrs | No |
| Total number of automotive recalls | r=0.96 | 48yrs | No |
| US production of yogurt, nonfrozen | r=0.96 | 22yrs | No |
| Solar power generated in Afghanistan | r=0.95 | 12yrs | No |
| Average milk produced per cow in the US | r=0.95 | 43yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'i am tired' | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
| Average length of Matt Parker's YouTube videos | r=0.91 | 12yrs | No |
| Bachelor's degrees awarded in Psychology | r=0.89 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Naomi 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.)