Report an error
Number of seasons Manchester United won matches correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Arizona | r=0.87 | 13yrs | No |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Arizona | r=0.86 | 13yrs | No |
The number of rehabilitation counselors in Nebraska | r=0.83 | 20yrs | Yes! |
The number of college sociology teachers in Missouri | r=0.82 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'Gangnam Style' | r=0.79 | 11yrs | No |
Number of World of Warcraft Subscribers | r=0.78 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Maiya | r=0.66 | 47yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Uganda | r=0.66 | 42yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Abbigail | r=0.61 | 48yrs | No |
Total Number of Successful Mount Everest Climbs | r=0.55 | 37yrs | No |
The distance between Neptune and Saturn | r=0.52 | 48yrs | No |
Number of seasons Manchester United won matches 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.)