Report an error
Number of Grand Slam Finals played by Roger Federer correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of social workers in Oregon | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Customer satisfaction with YouTube | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
The number of surveying and mapping technicians in California | r=0.91 | 13yrs | No |
Google searches for 'climate change' | r=0.91 | 8yrs | Yes! |
The number of electronics engineers in New Mexico | r=0.91 | 13yrs | Yes! |
The number of chefs and head cooks in Alaska | r=0.9 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand | r=0.88 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Israel | r=0.86 | 13yrs | Yes! |
Robberies in Iowa | r=0.85 | 13yrs | No |
Petroluem consumption in Serbia | r=0.8 | 10yrs | No |
The number of accountants and auditors in Arizona | r=0.73 | 13yrs | No |
Number of Grand Slam Finals played by Roger Federer 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.)