Report an error
Popularity of the first name Stella correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Number of internet users | r=0.99 | 24yrs | No |
| GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska | r=0.98 | 23yrs | No |
| Percentage of Americans with social media profiles | r=0.98 | 14yrs | No |
| Biomass power generated in Poland | r=0.98 | 42yrs | Yes! |
| Google searches for 'tummy ache' | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
| The price of gold | r=0.95 | 40yrs | No |
| Total number of live births in Australia | r=0.92 | 48yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Stella 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.)