Report an error
Popularity of the first name Marjorie correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? | 
| Bachelor's degrees awarded in law enforcement | r=0.97 | 10yrs | No | 
| Popularity of the 'doge' meme | r=0.92 | 17yrs | No | 
| Popularity of the 'cicada 3301' meme | r=0.91 | 17yrs | No | 
| Google searches for 'cute cats' | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No | 
| Google searches for 'sleepwalking' | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No | 
| Number of times 1 was a winning Mega Millions number | r=0.85 | 19yrs | No | 
| Wins for the Kansas City Royals | r=0.76 | 48yrs | No | 
| Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' | r=0.63 | 19yrs | No | 
Popularity of the first name Marjorie 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.)
