Report an error
Popularity of the first name Joaquin correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Total Number of Successful Mount Everest Climbs | r=0.96 | 37yrs | No |
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Mississippi | r=0.94 | 12yrs | Yes! |
The number of graphic designers in Ohio | r=0.94 | 20yrs | No |
Number of public school students in 10th grade | r=0.89 | 33yrs | No |
UFO sightings in Texas | r=0.88 | 47yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Alaska | r=0.59 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Joaquin 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.)