Report an error
Popularity of the first name Charlie correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Google searches for 'tummy ache' | r=1 | 19yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'do i need to go to the doctor' | r=0.96 | 19yrs | No |
| Inflation in the US | r=0.96 | 31yrs | No |
| Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System | r=0.95 | 48yrs | No |
| London Gold Prices | r=0.95 | 38yrs | No |
| Annual Revenue of Walt Disney Company | r=0.95 | 32yrs | No |
| McDonald's stock price (MCD) | r=0.93 | 21yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Charlie 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.)