Report an error
Popularity of the first name Courteney correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of hoist and winch operators in Texas | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
The number of air traffic controllers in Illinois | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
The number of reinforcing iron and rebar workers in New York | r=0.95 | 6yrs | No |
The number of private detectives in Ohio | r=0.94 | 6yrs | No |
The number of anesthesiologists in District of Columbia | r=0.93 | 6yrs | No |
The number of college computer science teachers in South Dakota | r=0.92 | 6yrs | No |
The number of police officers in California | r=0.88 | 6yrs | No |
The number of chemists in Alabama | r=0.86 | 6yrs | No |
The number of fine artists in Pennsylvania | r=0.85 | 6yrs | No |
The number of art directors in Arkansas | r=-0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Courteney 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.)