Report an error
Number of Portugal matches played by Cristiano Ronaldo correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Google searches for 'report UFO sighting' | r=0.93 | 19yrs | No |
The number of compensation and benefits managers in Maine | r=0.92 | 19yrs | Yes! |
GMO use in cotton in Tennessee | r=0.91 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'oprah winfrey' | r=0.91 | 19yrs | No |
Air pollution in Lynchburg, Virginia | r=0.9 | 20yrs | No |
Air pollution in Augusta, Georgia | r=0.88 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'learn spanish' | r=0.87 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'black holes' | r=0.86 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Keisha | r=0.83 | 20yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Luxembourg | r=0.81 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'E.T. phone home' | r=0.8 | 19yrs | No |
Number of Portugal matches played by Cristiano Ronaldo 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.)