Report an error
Popularity of the first name Cole correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of brickmasons in New Jersey | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
GMO use in cotton in Texas | r=0.98 | 23yrs | No |
The number of file clerks in Pennsylvania | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
GMO use in cotton | r=0.97 | 23yrs | No |
Geothermal power generated in Austria | r=0.97 | 17yrs | No |
US birth rates of triplets or more | r=0.96 | 20yrs | No |
Gasoline pumped in Japan | r=0.95 | 43yrs | No |
UK Public Library Count | r=0.94 | 12yrs | No |
Cigarette Smoking Rate for US adults | r=0.93 | 21yrs | No |
Google searches for 'oprah winfrey' | r=0.91 | 19yrs | No |
Viewership count of American Idol Season Finale | r=0.89 | 21yrs | No |
AIG's stock price (AIG) | r=0.86 | 21yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Cole 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.)