Report an error
The number of fashion designers in Washington correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in Business | r=0.92 | 10yrs | No |
Wind power generated in Luxembourg | r=0.89 | 19yrs | No |
Hispanic cheese consumption | r=0.84 | 19yrs | No |
American cheese consumption | r=0.84 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'dollar store near me' | r=0.83 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'no cap' | r=0.82 | 19yrs | No |
Gender pay gap in the U.S. | r=0.82 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'smol' | r=0.79 | 19yrs | No |
Butter consumption | r=0.77 | 19yrs | No |
The number of fashion designers in Washington 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.)