WINETASTER ON 1/3/93 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2011 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Gruet (NV) ........ 5th place Wine B is Moët et Chandon (NV) ........ 3rd place Wine C is Taittinger 1985 Comptes de Champagne ........ 1st place Wine D is Uanahcloke Ykpaihu (NV) ........ 7th place Wine E is Cristal 1988 ........ 4th place Wine F is Dom Perignon 1985 ........ 2nd place Wine G is Giulio Ferrari 1980 Riserva ........ 6th place Wine H is Great Western (NV) ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Ken 3. 2. 1. 7. 4. 5. 6. 8. Dick 4. 5. 2. 8. 1. 3. 6. 7. Burt 5. 3. 2. 8. 6. 1. 4. 7. John 4. 2. 1. 6. 5. 3. 8. 7. Bob 6. 2. 1. 7. 3. 4. 8. 5. Ed 7. 3. 4. 6. 5. 2. 1. 8. Frank 4. 5. 3. 6. 1. 2. 7. 8.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 5 3 1 7 4 2 6 8 Votes Against -> 33 22 14 48 25 20 40 50
( 7 is the best possible, 56 is the worst)
Here is a measure of the correlation in the preferences of the judges which ranges between 1.0 (perfect correlation) and 0.0 (no correlation):
W = 0.6122
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0001. Most analysts would say that unless this probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences are not strongly related. We now analyze how each taster's preferences are correlated with the group preference. A correlation of 1.0 means that the taster's preferences are a perfect predictor of the group's preferences. A 0.0 means no correlation, while a -1.0 means that the taster has the reverse ranking of the group. This is measured by the correlation R.
Correlation Between the Ranks of Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others
Name of Person Correlation R John 0.8503 Ken 0.8333 Dick 0.7665 Bob 0.7619 Burt 0.7563 Frank 0.6707 Ed 0.5030
The wines were preferred by the judges in the following order. When the preferences of the judges are strong enough to permit meaningful differentiation among the wines, they are separated by -------------------- and are judged to be significantly different.
1. ........ 1st place Wine C is Taittinger 1985 Comptes de Champagne 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Dom Perignon 1985 --------------------------------------------------- 3. ........ 3rd place Wine B is Moët et Chandon (NV) 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Cristal 1988 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Gruet (NV) 6. ........ 6th place Wine G is Giulio Ferrari 1980 Riserva --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine D is Uanahcloke Ykpaihu (NV) 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Great Western (NV) We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 30.0000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0001 We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla- tions that exist between pairs of judges. First, we present a table in which you can find the correlation for any pair of judges, by finding one of the names in the left hand margin and the other name on top of a column. A second table arranges these correlations in descending order and marks which is significantly positive significantly negative, or not significant. This may allow you to find clusters of judges whose rankings were particularly similar or particularly dissimilar. Pairwise Rank Correlations Correlations must exceed in absolute value 0.74 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level Ken Dick Burt Ken 1.000 0.690 0.619 Dick 0.690 1.000 0.548 Burt 0.619 0.548 1.000 John 0.857 0.595 0.667 Bob 0.714 0.667 0.500 Ed 0.262 0.238 0.714 Frank 0.595 0.905 0.452 John Bob Ed Ken 0.857 0.714 0.262 Dick 0.595 0.667 0.238 Burt 0.667 0.500 0.714 John 1.000 0.833 0.167 Bob 0.833 1.000 0.071 Ed 0.167 0.071 1.000 Frank 0.619 0.571 0.214 Frank Ken 0.595 Dick 0.905 Burt 0.452 John 0.619 Bob 0.571 Ed 0.214 Frank 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.905 Dick and Frank Significantly positive 0.857 Ken and John Significantly positive 0.833 John and Bob Significantly positive 0.714 Ken and Bob Significantly positive 0.714 Burt and Ed Significantly positive 0.690 Ken and Dick Significantly positive 0.667 Burt and John Significantly positive 0.667 Dick and Bob Significantly positive 0.619 Ken and Burt Not significant 0.619 John and Frank Not significant 0.595 Dick and John Not significant 0.595 Ken and Frank Not significant 0.571 Bob and Frank Not significant 0.548 Dick and Burt Not significant 0.500 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.452 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.262 Ken and Ed Not significant 0.238 Dick and Ed Not significant 0.214 Ed and Frank Not significant 0.167 John and Ed Not significant 0.071 Bob and Ed Not significant
COMMENT: This was a tasting of wines made in the methode champenoise --- I will not call them champagnes because only those wines made in the Champagne region of France may be called that. There is a real problem after so many years of identifying the wine the name of which we recorded as Uanahcloke Ykraihu. We always remembered it as a "Russian champagne," yet the word Ykraihu looks suspiciously like Ykraiha, which would be the Latin transliteration of the Cyrillic word for Ukraine. In any event, the wine is from the Soviet Union. The results show the most fantastic agreement recorded by the tasters ever; two wines are rock bottom (Great Western and this Soviet wine) and two are significantly good. Not surprisingly, the Taittinger and the Dom Perignon are the two top champagnes in this tasting.
Return to previous page